UC-NRLF 


B  F 
1561 
R6 
1893a 

MAIN 


B   4    MflZ   217 


HISTORY 


AMULETS,  CHARMS, 


TALISMANS. 


rvwTOi  ,r^sfi  ^dote 


>  '-\ 


HISTORY    OF 


Amulets,  Charms, 

a  n  r> 

Talismans. 


A  Historical  Investigation  into  their  Nature  and  Origin. 


MICHAEL  L.   RODKINSOt^'  ^MLv/ 

Ursprmig  tmd  Entwickelung  des  Phylacterien-Ritus  be 
J, <d,;t ."  and  Editor  of  Ha-Kol,   Ha-Hose,  Asephath 
C/iachamim,   Ha-Measseph,   ?tc. 


M'THOK  OF 


new  y:rk.  >£ 


w 


* 

TO 

Dr.  ADOLPH   JELLINEK, 

.11111    RABBI  OF  VIENNA 

Dr.     M.     LAZARUS, 

.,    University,  I 

Monsieur  ZADOC  CAHN, 

Cliiel  Rabbi  ol  Fi  ai 

AND 

Dr.  GUSTAV  GOTTHEIL, 

Rabbi  ol    remple  Emanu-EI,  New  N 

In  token  of  gratitude  for  the  ninny  valuable  serv- 
ices rendered  by  them  to  science  in  general, 
and   Jewish  learning   in   particular,    as 
well  as  for  the  great  kindness  shown 
by  them   to   liis   person, 

DEDICATED     BY 

MM'.      UTHOR. 


In  compliance  with  current  copyright 

law,  U.  C.  Library  Bindery  produced 

this  replacement  volume  on  paper 

that  meets  the  ANSI  Standard  Z39.48- 

1984  to  replace  the  irreparably 

deteriorated  original 

1996 


TESTIMONIALS. 


Of  the  many  testimonials  given  to  the  author  by  most 
renowned  scholars  of  the  world  he  gives  here  only  two  :  one 
bv  Rev.  Dr.  Julius  H.  Ward,  editor  of  the  Scientific  De- 
partment of  the  Boston  Herald\  the  other  by  Rev.  Dr. 
WILLIAM  C.  WinsloW,  Vice-President  for  the  United  States 
of  the  London   Egypt   Kxploration  Society. 


(From  the  Boston  Herald,  June  19,  1892.) 

Sometimes  o  genuine  scholar  is  dispossessed  of  his 
place  and  is  compelled  to  take  up  his  abode  amoiiir 
strangers,  and  usually  just  in  proportion  to  his  ex- 
cellence as  a  student  is  liis  difficulty  in  meeting  the 
world  and  making  a  square  1 1 ^r  1 1 1  when  everything 
turns  against  Inm.  This  seems  lo  be  the  case  with 
Dr.  Michael  I,.  Rodkinson,  who  has  been  the  victim 
of  the  persecution  of  the  Jews  in  Russia  to  the  extent 
that  his  home  and  means  of  obtaining  a  livelihood  have 
been  destroyed,  and  with  an  imperfect  knowledge  ol 
English,  he  and  his  family  have  been  compelled  to 
shifi  as  good  as  thej  could  among  comparative  strang- 
les in  a  new  country.  He  bears  with  him  an  in- 
dorsement of  his  work  and  position  the  names  of  the 
most  emeninl  Jewish  rabbis  in  England  and  on  the 
continent,  and  in  the  hope  of  establishing  himself  in 
this  country  he  has  written  a  book  on  the  histon 
of  amulets,  which,  if  published,  would  not  only 
give  him  among  us  the  scholarly  rank  to  which  he  is 
entitled,  but  would,  to  some  extent,  he  of  pecuniary 
help  to  him.  This  book  is  now  in  press  in  New  5 
It  will  be  issued  in  an  English  translation  as  soon  as 
D  .  Rodkinson  has  secured  enough   subscriptions  at 


two  dollars  a  volume  to  pay  for  its  printing  and  hind 
ing.  Prof.  H.  C.  Toy  of  Cambridge  lias  looked  over 
his  work  and  gives  the  following  estimate  of  its  value. 
"Leaving  out  the  etymologies  of  Hebrew  words  and 
the  pretalmudic  archaeolgy,  I  find  Dr.  Rodkinson's 
history  of  Jewish  amulets,  from  the  tahnudic  times  to 
the  present,  (dear  ainUuseful.  particularly  his  expo- 
sitions of  tin.'  genesis  and  method  of  rabbinical  (lis - 
eussion."  The  writer  has  also  carefully  examined  the 
same  manuscript,  and  strongly  indores  what  Prof.  Toy 
has  said.  The  work  is  readable  for  any  one,  and  it 
brings  out  in  Hebrew  life  the  interest  in  amulet-. 
which  is  the  expression  of  the  fondness  for  charms 
which  Christians  illustrate  in  wearihg  the  symbol  of 
the  cross.  What  Dr.  Rodkinson  needs  is  a,  recog- 
nition of  his  scholarly  work  in  the  form  of  subscrip- 
tions, and  he  can  be  reached  by  letters  or  m  person  ot 
.12  Chambers  street. 


Boston,  Mass.,  June  L3,  1892. 
Rev.  Dr.  M.  L.  Rodkinson. 

My  dear  Sir:  — 
Krom  a  cursor}  reading  of  some  of  your  Ms., 
in  typewritten  copy,  I  am  led  to  conclude  that  you 
are  handling  an  exceedingly  interesting  subject  with 
tin.'  thoroughly  critical  and  scholarly  manner  that  be- 
longs to  its  proper  consideration.  Tour  disquisition 
on  the  Tephillim  is  very  luminous  and  forcible.  The 
world  of  Oriental  research  is  placed  under  obligation 
>u  for  jour  painstaking  labors  and  for  the  value- 
able  result  therefrom. 

I  am  l:  ad  to  know  that  so  scholarly  a   treatise 
as  yours  is  to  be  published. 

Thanking  you  for  your  kindness  in  calling, 
I  am  most  faithfully  yours, 

Wm.  C.    "vVinm."\v. 


A  few  Words  to  the  Critic. 


A  few  yours  since,  in  mybook  entitled  ''Ursprung 
und  Entwickelimg  rles  Phylacterien  Ritus  hei  den 
Juden"  (The  Origin  and  Development  of  the  Phyl.Rit. 
by  the  Jews)  I  expressed  an  opinion  concerning  the 
history  of  the  TepJrillim  which  caused  a  greal  uproar 
among  the  Scholars  of  the  "Orthodox"  class  on  the 
one  hand,  and  gained  for  me  the  sympathy  of  the 
'Reformed"  Hebrews,  on  the  other.  All  the  Jewish 
periodicals1,  in  different  countries,  al    ihal    time,  ap- 


1 1  The    following   art-    the    names   of      periodicals    which 
mentioned    <>ur    work    in    ISS3  :     "Jewish    I  [ewish 

World.  London  :    Revue  des  Etudes  Jnives,  Paris;  Allgei 
Zeitung  des  Judenthums,    Hon;    Magdebur  chrift 

burg;    Reformer,    Prague;      Monatsschrift,      Fra 
a.  M.;  Ungai  it  •.  Buda  Pesl  :    Voschod,  Si  I 

burg;     Vmerican    Israelite,    I1  innati  ;    and  a  few 

others    in    Italy,    etc. 


—    Ill    — 


proved  my  position  and  many  prominent  scholars2 
honored  me  with  private  letters  and  expressed  that 
approval,  partially  <>r  wholly  of  our  opinion. 


2)    The    names    of     the    honorable    gentelrnen    are    the 
following:     Dr.     Ascher,     London;    Dr.   Bernstein,    the    well- 
known  Naturalist,    Berlin;     Dr.    Brill.  Frankfort    a.    M.  ;     Dr. 
rger,  Koenigsberg  i.  l'r.    Dr.  Bloch,  Posen  :  Mr.   Buber, 
Lemberg;     Dr.    Zaduc   Cohn,   tlrand   Rabbi    of    France;    Dr. 
S.  Cohn.   Huda  Pest;  Prof.  Dr.  Delitz,  Leipsic ;    Dr.  Duschak, 
Krakau;     Dr.    Drabkin,     St.     Petersburg;    Mr.    S.     I.     Finn, 
Wilna  ;      Prcf.     Dr.     Goldzieher,     Buda     Pest;     Rev.     (Ireen. 
lor.   (the    late?   (irand    Rabbi    of    Francei  ; 
Dr.    Jellinek,     Vienna;     Dr.     Kaiserling,     Buda    Pest;      Dr. 
Krochmal,  Frankfort    a.    M.  ;     Dr.     Klein,     Stokholm  ;     Prof. 
Dr.   Lazarus,   Berlin;   Dr.   M.  Lipschutz,   Berlin;   Dr.   Landau. 
len ;    Prof.    Maries.    London;    Dr.   Maibaum,  Berlin;    Mr. 
imer,  Thorn;    Dr    Rabbi- 
Paris;   Dr.    Rubin.   Vienna;    Mr.    Sachs,     Paris;    Mr. 
Ch,    S.    Slonimsky,     Warsaw;     Mr.     B.     Slutzker,    Hamburg; 
Prof.    l'r.    Steinthal,    Berlin:   Prof,    rheodorus,    Manchester, 
Dr.    Wuensche,     Dresden,    Mr.    Wustenelzky,    Subalko.     And 
the   following    eminent    gentlemen    honored    me    with    their 
opinion,    in    this    country,    about    my    works    in    my    album, 
Dr.    1  York. 


I   mi)   well   aware  that    it    was  no!  the  superior 
knowledge  contained  in  the  book  just  mentioned,  which 

attracted  the  attention  of  so  many  eminent  men,  He- 
brews and  Christians  (as  Prof.  Delitz  of  Leipsic, 
Dr.  Wuensche  of  Dresden,  the  Bishop  of  Westminister, 
London,  who  honored  me  with  their  letters),  but  the 
fact  that  the  subject  had  remained  untouched  by  .Jew- 
ish writers  up  to  that  time  (as  slated  by  Dr.  Rubin  of 
Vienna,  Phyl.  Kit.  x.)  It  is  true  thai  If.  Shur,  editor 
of  the  "Hachalutz" attempted  to  treal  this  subject  (Ha- 
chalutz  vol.  v.)  but  he  did  not  carry  his  investigation 
very  far  concerning  the  names  and  history  of  the  Te- 
pjiilljm:  hence  it  was  that  my  attempt  to  elaborate  a 
subject  which  had  been  but  little  investigated  attract- 
ed the  attention  of  prominent  men,  and  many  of  them 
urged  me  to  proceed  with  the  investigation.  (See  the 
letter  of  the  well-known  Naturlist  I>r.  A.  Bernstein, 
and  Prof.  Lazarus  of  Berlin,  did  the  same  concerning 


Pr.    Hirst   d'V    letter)  Chicago.     Dr.   Jastrow,    hPiladelphia, 

Rabbi    Jacob   Joseph,  Dr.    Kohler,     Dr.    Kohut,     I»r.   Klein. 

and     Prof.    Edw.    R.  Seligman,     New     York.     Dr.    Morais, 
Philadelphia. 


my    work     Der  Schutehan    Aruch    und  fteint 
hungei 

much  indebted  to  the  gentlemen  named  for 
their  kindness  and  encouragement,  I  could  not  satisfy 
myself  without  continuing  my  investigations;  ■ 
[ally  as  I  did  not  see  any  detailed  criticism  of  my 
opinions  relative  to  the  history  and  development  of  the 
Tephillim,  and.  much  to  my  disappointment,  it  seemed 
as  if  the  Scholars  of  the  present  time,  ilid  no  more 
than  distract  themselves  in  trying  to  analyze  my 
opinions. 

Mr.  L.  Lillienblum,   indeed,  olten   sent    me  brief 
remarks,  and  attempted  to  refute  a  few  of  my  liyp  ith- 
These  I  gave  a  place  in  my  Ebbi  n  Sappir,  to- 
gether with  my  replies.     But  all  this  did  nut  amount 
to  a  criticism,  as  the  author  himself  admits. 

Mr.  K.  A.  Kmchmal  in  '•■linn  Tephillim"  limited 
his  criticism  to  the  remark,  that  in  his  opinion  Hie 
Tephillim  were  established  by  the  '-Ashcoles"  (after 
the  Temple  Synedrion  ni^acxn  *x  TY\i\tn)  and  not  by 
the  Synedrion  of  Jamnia.  Farther  than  this  he  did 
not  Lro.  (See  his  original  words  in  Ebben  Sappir,  al- 
ready n  ferred  to,  and  \n\  reph  |.  A  still  fuller  reply 
will   be   found   in   Chapter  v.  of  this  book,     Monsieur 


—      VI       — 

Fsitlor  Locb,  of  the  Revue  ties  Etudes  Juives,  satisfied 
himself  with  saying;  only  thai  it  is  credulous  thai  there 
could  not  be  found  a  pair  of  Tephillim  in  France  in  the 
•  lays  ofRashi  ami  Tosephoth  as  we  prove  in  our  I'hyl. 
liit.  (in  disregard  of  our  proofs  induced  in  said  work 
from  K.  Isaac  the  eldest  (Ri  ;pn  '"I)  of  the  Tosphoth, 
and  the  Rabbi  Jacob  the  author  of  the  "Question  and 
Answers  from  Heaven  DTOfrn  jo  roe>m  rr6KB> of Curbel 
and  did  not  attempt  t<>  go  further  remarking  only  that 
there  are  in  my  work  many  good  things  worthy  of  no- 
tice. Prof.  Steinthal  expressed  the  opinion  in  his 
letter  to  me  (.see  Shulchan  Aruch  und  seine  Bezie- 
hungen  etc.)  that  the  meaning  of  (□mi"p'i)  can  not  be 
taken  in  the  ordinary  sense,  that  it  should  be  tied  on 
the  hand,  but  in  the  sense  in  which  I  explained  it,  and 
thou  shalt  write  it  on  the  door-post  of  thy  house 
flJVa  niTlTO  hi'  Dnanai)  which  can  Uol  be  taken  to  mean 
that  the  whole  Bible,  or  ['cut.  alone  shaUbe  written  on 
the  door-posts,  or  (D333^  by  DriC"",!  And  you  shall  set 
it  on  your  hearts,  to  mean  to  place  it  on  the  heart,  bul 
inside  the  heart  i.  e.  to  be  always  borne  in  mind:  with 
this  Ids  criticism  ended  The  few  remarks  I  have 
quoted,  comprise  the  whole  criticism  upon  my  work 
during   L883-'84,  at    least,    all    that  came  to  my  eyes. 


From  the' orthodox  class  I  did  not  hear  anything  either 
for  or  against  the  above  work.  Were  it  not  for  the 
encouragement  given  by  honorable  gentlemen  named 
on  the  Brst  page  I  should  be  inclined  to  think  that  the 
subject  I  have  elaborated  isofvery  slight  interest,  and 
does  not  deserve  to  be  further  considered.  But  seeing 
that  my  opinions  have  gained  approval,  in  general,  if 
not  in  detail  and  tince  I  knew  that  my  investigations 
were  not  complete.  I  determined  to  undertake  the 
work  of  criticism  myself;  to  go  over  again  all  I  have 
written  in  Phvl.  Rit  .  Haknl  and  Ebben  Sappir,  to  coi- 
led further  information,  complete  my  work. 

When  this  was  done  I  came  to  the  conclusion  that 
the  material  which  was  crowded  into  Phyl.  Rit.  and 
Ebben  S:ippir,\vasnot  sufficient  to  give  a  clear  history 
..f  the  Tephillim  and  Komeoth,  leaving  out  the 
polemical  part  which  I  introduced  there.     I  was   also 

influen 1  by  Dr.  Rubin  ofVienna,  who  ndvised  me  to 

write  :i  i.lain  history  of  the  Tephillim.  free  from  pole- 
mics and  scholastic  discussion,  in  order  that  the  Critic 
mighi  penetrate  the  subject  without  hindrance.  And 
now  having  been  requested  by  one  of  the  Proffessors  of 
Harvard  University,  Boston,  to  write  a  short  history 
of  the    Pephillim    in  Knglish,    I   have   composed  this 


—       VIII      — 

hook,  which  although  not  large,  proems  not  only  the 
history  oi  the  Tephillim  or  Totopboth,  but  the  history 
of  all  kinds  of  Komeoth  m  general,   from   their  first 

appearance  until  now.  The  texts  contain  the  facts, 
which  I  have  gathered  from  different  sources,  these 
have  been  carefully  analyzed,  and  may  lie  taken  as 
positively  established. 

In  the  remarks,  which  accompany  the  text,  I  have 
given  the  sources  from  which  the  facts  have  heen  ob- 
tained, and  the  reason  for  my  own  opinions,  whenever 
these  have  been  introduced. 

I  also  deem  it  necessary  to  call  attention  to  cer- 
tain opinions,  which  I  have  expressed,  which  have  not 
been  set  forth  by  any  writer  hereto,  and  to  ask  the 
Scholars  of  the  present  time  to  analyze  them,  and  give 
their  opinions  concerning  them,  namely:  The  Origin 
of  the  Names  Tutophoth,  Tephillim,  and  Komeo,  which 
I  found  out  after  all  I  have  heretefore  written  on  this 
subject  was  in  print:  also  the  nature  of  the  Tephillim 
in  tin1  peri  id  beginning  from  the  Prophet  Ezek  to 
Hillel  the  Zakken:  also  tin;  change  in  removing  the 
texts  from  the  outside  to  the  inside  of  the  c  isea  by  the 
•Tamilian  Synedrion,  also  tin'  Komeo  known  a- the 
'•dove's  wings"  (nav  'Qja)  worn  bv  the  Samaritan,  ami 


—       IX      — 

originating  Ironi  the  "Dove"  placed  tlieni  on  the  mount 
'Genzim"  as  a  God,  which  Borneo  "Ehsha"  '«tlie  Man 
of  the  Wings"  ("D"M3"7]n)  wore  to  turn  aside  the  at- 
tention of  the   Casdor;    also  my  opinion   about  the 

Koni Jishre  "Mochson"  with  which  Dr   Dushak  and 

others  agree   also:  the   wearing  of  Tephillim  by  the 
•Jewish  Christians   in   the  earliest  ages,  which  caused 
many  changes  to  be  made  against   them  by  opposers, 
the  Pharasees;  also  a  new  explanation  of  the  Berniiha 
"piD  "rra.«   and  the     meaning  of    the    Misnna    the 
iolophoth  when  they  are  sewed   up;   and  lastly. — the 
ipmcnts  of  wearing    the    Tephillim  p'an  nn:n 
in  the  course  of  time  until  \\.  Joseph  Caro.       L600) 
I  humbly  request    learned    men    and  scholars  to 
read  this  work  attentively,   and  in  the    order  as  pre- 
sented,   and  not  to  leap   from    Chapter  to    Chapter, 
irreguarly;  onlj  thus  can  they  judge  correctly  whether 
my  positions  and  conclusions   are  correct,    I    shall  be 
id  grateful  to  see  my  work   carefully  analyzed 
mdidly  criticised,    I  do  not  oft'er  isa  fi- 

nal and  absolutely  perfect  authority  but  as  a  contri- 
bution to  the  literature  of  a  subject  which  demands 
still  further  study. 

New  Vork,  M  via  ii. 

The  55th  Y'ear  of  mi    life. 


CHAPTER    I. 

PRELIMINARY      I  ONSIDERATIONS. 

I    i,    this  only  have   [found,   that  God    hath 
made    man  upright;    in-,:   they   have 

out    many      inventions.       Eccl.    VII     29). 

Tin'  wonderful  workings  of  tin-  powers  of  na- 
ture, hidden  from  man's  knowledge  in  early  days 
and  but  imperfectly  unilerstood  even  to-day;  good 
and  ''vil  events  which  liappen,  whose  causes  an'  un- 
known; tin'  fortunes  and  misfortunes  which  have 
befallen  mankind:  epidemicswhich  spread  ever  the 
earth;  the  medicinal  powers  contained  in  plants  and 
herbs,  discovered  by  chance,  when  tasted  '»r  applied 
externally,  to  have  i\  curative  property  ail  these 
und  other  similar  facts  led  man  in  early  times  in  the 
belief  in  tl xistence  of  hidden  and  mysterious  pow- 
ers. These  were  supposed  to  he  created  of  God  on  the 
..lie  hand  as   n  scourge  or  a  plague,  and  on   the  other 

Amulets,    Charms,  Talismans.  —  Rodkinson.  4 . 


2 

as  a  bi  mankind.    The  earth.  it  was  believed, 

was  by  the  will  of  God  submitted  to  the  influence  of 
these  powers,  thai  they  might  rule  over  all  creation, 
sustaining  or  destroying  life,  causing  sickness  or 
removing  it,  and  bringing  fortune  or  misfortune  as  the 
ease  might  be.    These  occult  powers,    called  '•spirits*'. 

iiiu:  everything,     but   themselves   being    invisible. 

were  moreover  believed  to  wander  over  the  world  do- 
ing harm  to  those  who  did  not  respect  them  or  who 
in  any  way    defiled  their  sanctity,  but  making  happy 

who  chanted  their  praises  in  songs  and  hymns 
or  who  met  therewith  the  names  of  the  holy  gods  who 
were  reverenced  by  them.  The  credulous  sought  there- 
fore every  means  of  appeasing  these  spirits  and  of 
ingratiating  themselves  with    them  in  order  to  avoid 

•  une  and  escape  had  luck. 

In  consequence  of  such   superstitions  some  shrewd 

people   el. limed    to    have    intercourse     with    the   hoh 

to  possess  the    power   of  conferring    favors 

upon    their  friends  and  of  meting  out  misfortunes  to 

their  en. ■mies.   Such  men   were   set  up    as  priests  and 

minister*   of  the  gods  and  as    mediators  between    the 

and  men.    These  enjoyed  honor--  and  were  held 

verenee:  the  people  kissed  their  hands  an  i 


3       - 

the  borders  of  their  garments.  Others,  again,  shrewd- 
ly claimed  intimacy  wich  omnipresenl  spirits  and  the 
power  to  influence  them  for  good  or  evil.  Such  were 
the  sorcerers  and  enchanters  of  ancient  times.  Peo- 
ple feared  them  often  but  did  not  honor  them,  will- 
ingly gave  them  gifts,  though  considering  themselves 
robbed  of  their  property;  still  they  were  compelled 
to  give,  out  of  fear  of  arousing  the  anger  of  the  evil 
spirits.  Hence  there  arose  two  kinds  of  such  men:  the 
holv  priests  of  the  gods,  and  the  sorcerers  or  enchant- 
ers who  had  the  power  simply  to  cause  or  remove 
evil  but  not  to  bestow  g 1  (1. 

The  fear  felt  by  the  people  for  the  sorcerers  and 
for  the  occult  powers  urged  them  on  to  seek  from 
their  priests  devices  of  protection  which  might  be 
nsed  by  them  at  home  or  abroad,  when  awake  or 
iisleep,  and   defend  from  conjury     T:":   and   conjur- 

3 

era.  The  holv  priests  gladly  fell  in  with  the  peo- 
ple's requests  and  furnished  them  with  various  im- 
ages of  their  idols,  with  magic  sentences  inscribed  on 
various  substances,    containing    nanus    of   gods    and 

i     As   can    be   seen    from    scripture,    Balaam    the    sorceiei 
haul   only   the  power    of  cursing,    but    not  that    of    doing  g 


goddesses.  Tli«\  tiiughl  exorcism  of  the  evil  spirits. 
Tli.-\  gnve  theni  verses  culled  from  their  sacred  books, 
songs  ;; n< I  hymns  addressed  to  gods  and  heroes,  and 
the  like:  ulso  charms  to  be  worn  on  the  head,  breast, 
and  arms.  Men  of  the  name  period  living  under  sim- 
ilar conditions  are  everywhere  alike:  and  thus  there 
was  no  nation  of  antiquity  that  did  not  wear  charms 
i  one  form  or  another  on  the  head,  breast,  or 
arm      -' 


UHAPTEH    II. 

AMULETS.     THEIK     MATERIAL.     FORMS.      S'AMES 
\  N  I  >      POV 

The  i  harms  which  were  worn  in  ancient  time* 
by  all  peoples  ami  also  by  the  Jews  are  called  in  tin 
Talmud  U.AMEOTH.  We  shall  see  further  on  how  the 
word  originated   and   how  it    was  used  by* the  author* 

of    the     Tain. n,!. 


r«"^     un.l     Entwiclce- 
I  ii  n  r   «les    Fhylacterien.fi  lien  Juden. 


Since  the  amulet  had  to  be  worn  exposed  to  viewi 
in  order  thai  the  spirits  should  see  their  inscriptions 
?ind  keep  away  from  the  wearer,  they  in  the  course 
of  time  developed  into  ornaments.  The  rich  made 
them  of  gold,  silver,  bronze,  and  precious  stones,  while 
the  ]>oor  contented  themselves  with  parchment,  pieces 
of  linen  or  woolen  cloth,  lace  or  embroidered  fil- 
let.-- made  by  the  women  to  embellish  their  qameah 
(amulet),  for  women  also  wore  charmsfor  protectiou 
as    well  as  for   ornament  ::'. 

Not  only  did  the  materials  vary,  but  there  was 
also  exhibited  a  multiplicity  of  shapes.  Some  were  in 
the  form  <>!'  plates  worn  on  tne  forehead  *);  some 
represented  images  ef  gods;  some  were  round  like 
;i  ball  5) ;  while  others  had  the  Eorm  of  small  square 
eases  with  their  outside  laces  covered  with  inscrip- 
tions. That  the  fillets  also  had  a  variety  of  design? 
may  easily  be  inferred;  for  the  frontlets  were  fastened 
by  fillets  from  the  forehead   to   the  occiput,  and  the 


3)  Tract    Shabbath,    fol.  ,57;    also    Dr.     Matter,    I.e. 

4)  Ibid;   ibid. 

5)  Mishna,     Meg  ilia:      "II    one   make   liiv     pi 
round",     etc. 

Amulets,  Charms,   Talismans.  —  Rodkinson.  t. 


balls  or  small  cases  were  fastened  by  means  of  a  fillel 
encircliug  the  head,  making  a  knot  at  the  occipul  ni  d 
falling  down  over  both  shoulders  upon  the  breast  ,;). 
The  Bindoos  and  the  Persians  call  these 
charms,  talismans;  the  hitter  also  hamalete  7). 
The  Romans  called  them  amulets  ( amulet  a). 
the  Mesopotamians  teraphim,  the  Basilians 
a  hi-  a  x  a  s,  ami  t  lie  G  reeks  phylacteriaor  t$tdicheja"8) 
The  Egyptians  ami  the  ancient  Hebrews  also 
to  tap  both  9)3  ami  the  Chaldees  (seruche) 
tebh  uli  m  10  .  The  shapes  and  inscription-  varied 
with  the  different  nations  ami  religions,  also  with  the 
taste  of  the  wearer:  hut  the  belief  in  their  efficacy 
for  warding  off  evil   spirits   and   for  breaking  their 

spell  was  common  to  all  nations. 

Besides  tie'  above  qualities  their  wearers  ascribed 
to  them  the  power  of  bringing  them  success  in  their 


6)  Ezclc.     xxiii.      15. 

7)  Hammer,    cited    by    Dushak    in    our    work.     Ebh 
Sappir,   ]>.  36,  and  1  >r.   Kohut  in  a  letter  i.>  us. 

Si  Dr.  Matter,  o\ 

lelkern  in  Ha-Kol. 
i"i  I   '■  !i  -  n    S  a  p  p  i  r. 


undertakings  and  of  preserving  them  from  various 
diseases.  Special  amulets  existed  for  use  in  time  of 
epidemics,  and  such  are  found  even  to-day  among  the 
lower  classes.  The  Hebrews  also,  like  many  other 
nations,  believed  them  to  be  conducive  to  the  prolong- 
ation of  human  life  H.) 


CHAPTEE  111. 

Totaphoth;  Origin  of  the  Name:  the  two  Idols  Toth,  Poth ; 
the  Time  during  which  they  Remained  in  Use;  their 
Changes. 

The  Hebrews  m  Egypl  used  to  wear  frontlets  upon 
their  foreheads,   after  the  manner  of  the    Egyptians 

of  that    time,    which  they  called   "Totaphoth." 
They  also  wore  knots  upon  their  arms  12). 

The  name  -'totaphoth"    was  taken  from  the 


ii)  Tract    M  e  n  ahot  h.    Eol.  27. 

1.  jee  Munter,  also  Wiener  and  Gottfried  cited  by 
Dnshak  in  our  Ila-Kol,  No.  297,  p.  124.  and  in  our  Eb  he  n 
Sappir,  p.  36.  The  same  appears  from  the  testimony 
of  Demetrius  in  De  Rossi  V  Me  or  Enayim,  II  ad  rath 
Zeqenim,  and  see,  .it  length,  in  oui  Phyl.  Kit  us,  pp.  52-7 1 . 


-    - 

COCIX    O 

- 
* 


—    t) 


command  thee  tins  day  shall  be  In  thine   heart  .  .. 
And    thou   shalt    bind   them   tor  a  Bign    upon   thine 

The  Idol  „TOTH"  who  was  supposed  lo  grant  support  lo 
the  rulers  of  Fgypt  and  who  had  at  Lis  disposal  the  „lree 
of  life"  and  to  bestow  itupon  everyone  whom  he  chose  and 
who  according  .o  legends  of  the  Egyptians,  has  eugraved  on  ifc 
leaves  of  the  ..tree  of  life"  the  king  Ramesas  n  was  ;  asso- 
ciated by  the  ruk„  of  Fgjpt  with  ihe  Idol  "Poth",  these  two 
p,ni;,  together  have  the  pewe,  of  grcnti.  g  loth  life  and  light 
upo„  everyone  of  their  worshippers.  But  life  being  the  fin,i 
necessary  to  conception  of  enlightning,  they  gave  the  preference 
to  „Tph"  and  called  "toth  poth"  And  this  name,  including 
the  basis  of  happiness,  the  Fgyptians  gave  lo  everyone  thej 
favored  and  respected;  thns  they  called  their  kings  and  rulers, 
Mr.  Marieto  Exploring  the  ruins  of  Mernphes.  found  an 
Obelisk  of  the  ruler  ..tototeph"  (at  present  in  Paris)  which  af- 
ter all,  probably,  was  named  after  the  above  mentioned  Idols. 
And  according  to  the  opinion  of  the  great  orientalist  Mr. 
Aulehman  even  the  name  "Fgypt"  from  the  Greeks  is  composed 
of  the  words  ,.Co--Poth"  (Coptic)  which  meaus  „ The  land  ol 
poth"  because  Poth  being  the  first  of  the  Idol,  of  the  Egyptians. 
And  now  we  can  only  confilm  1>>.  Mandelkern's  opinion, 
that  the  name,  of  the  said  two  Idols  which  the  Hebrews  borrowed 
from  the  Egyptians,  Sec  Hiatory  of  Oriental  Nation.  ; 
iS  "ho  .were  wor  shipping  them  in  the  day.  when  the  Hebrew* 
wcae  dwelling   in    Egypt,    and  we  will    ad.)  too.    that     R.    Aquiba 


—     10     - 


hand,  and  they  shall  be  as  frontlets  (totaphoth) 
between  thineeji  - '  i  I  -  ■  Thispassage  is  tobe 

understood  in  the  way  in  which  K.  Samuel  ben  Meir, 
;i  grandson  of  [saacides  (Rashi)  explained  it  in  his 


with  hi  r-:"  TDS3  OQ  meant 

'.~n:2  :  i>    Coptic 

■    Phyl.  Kit.  p.  99.)    TOT  mighi   have    had    the   meaning 

■•tw.."  because  ol  its   being  alwj  I   with   That   (and 

coupled   the    god   Tot.         S 

However  that   be,   we  see  that   K.   Aqiba 

:  .1  p  ho  t  h  !•  origin, 

and  the  same  view  is  held  by   Dr.   David  de   Pipius     (See  our 

l'tivl.  Rit.  p.  89),  and   by    Abraham   Saba,    author  of   Zeror 

Kami  are  cited   by  us  in   Phyl.   Kit.  p.  64, 

note  7.     Siu.e  it  is  well   known   that  those  amulets  bore  the 

■ 
thai    "Tot"  and    "Phat"  were   members  of  the 
intheon,    there   is   no  dou  e<  tness 

Mandelkern's  opinion. 

5teinthal,wh<  I  !  gyptian 

Phyl.    Kit.    |>.    98),    did   not   see  Dr.    Mandelkern's 

is  now 

;  the  name  lephillim 

v  from  the  Babylo 

•  nations  borrow  costumes 

apt  to 

imita 


—  11  — 

commentary  ad  loc.   "'Forasign  npon  thine  hand.' 
This  is  to  be  understood  in  its  conventional  sense;  thai 
is,  it  shall  be  to  thee  a  continual  memorial,  as  if  it  had 
been   written   up<»n   thine  hand,  like  the  expression 
/Cant.  viii.  6.),  'Set    me  as   a    seal  upon    thine  heart.' 
'Between  thine  eyes,'  for  an  ornament  or  golden  trin- 
ket which  used  to  be  worn  on    the    forehead."    The 
Talmudists'   view   of  tins   passage,    namely,  thai    il 
commands   the    substitution    of    passages    from    the 
Bible  for  heathen  incantations  in  the  lotaphoth  used, 
is    also    admissible.       For   oft<  n   we  meet  with  the  ex- 
hortation: "After  the  doings  of  the  land  of  Ejrypt  shall 
ye  no1  do"   M). 

The  form  oftheTot  aphol  h  was  that  ofa  plate 
slightly  curved,  covering  the  forehead  and  reaching 
from  ear  to  ear,  bound  by  a  fillet  to  the  occiput.  On  its 
outside  face  it  bore  an  inscription  of  some  verse?  or  of 
names  of  God,  and  that  form  continued  in  use  down  to 
the  time  of  the  Mishna,  and  though  we  do  nol  knou 
what  verses  or  names  it  bore  in  Egypl ,  wc  nevertheless 
d<>  know  thai  at  the  time  of  the  firsl  doctors  of  the 
Mishna  the  verses  on  the  I  ol  a  phol  h  contained  the 


14)  This  has  been  already  su 
p.  s  ol  the  [ntrodu«  tion,  lines    2 


[2 

Shema  portioD  VQV  nana)  (Deut.  vi.  4.  5)  15).  The 
rich  used  to  make  them  of  gold  or  silver,  and  the  poor 
„f  doth  of  various  colors,  and  both  men  and  women 
u,„v  them  as  ornaments  l"  The  MLshna  allowed 
women  to  go  out  with  them  on  the  Sabbath,  provided 
they  bore  inscriptions  on  the  outside,  but  forbade 
vvearingthem  on  thestreet  upon  the  Sabbath  before 
fhev  yet  lit  I  their    inscriptions  17).    But  the    Mishna 


,  -  Moses  ol  Couc)  in  his  Kleli  Hamitsvoth  ed. 
liasilia,  1533)  says:  "II  is  a'  command  of  performance",  HW- 
~Z",'  i"  fasten  ihetephillim  on  ihc  hand,  because  it  is 
ii  'and  lliou  shall  bind  them'  ~.  ~l'~'  He  also  says  "A 
which  i-  fastened  upon  the  forehead,  reaching  from  ear  to 
car  is  called  in  Scripture  Tola ph  ot  h,  etc.,  and  the  section. 
Shema"    1-    written    therein.  Catalogue    Zedner    of 

the    Hut,     Museum       N 

1    I'hyl.     Kit.    p.     135    i1  1      5 

16    Pract  Shah  hat  h,    f":  1  p  h  o  t  h  running  from 

olors,    the  rich 

Id    anil  silver."    In  1  tie  same   way  the    aulhoi   of    Zemach 

David    explains    that  the     tolapho'lh    was  a  plate   like    thai 

worn  liy  the    high    priesl.    See  also  Dr.     Rubin's     letter    in    Phvl. 

Kit.    1 

1     ilicii    Sappir,    at  the  beginning:  "That  which 
Vcmaincd  of  it  m  1  lie  time  .>f    ihc     Mishnn  \\  a-  noi    merely  .1  slight 


—     13     — 

does  not  speak  at  all  about  men's  wearing  totaphoth, 
for  the  reason  that,  men  had  then  begun  to  wear  an- 
other amulet  known  by  the  name<  Uebhulim  or  tephilr 

Um;  which  latter  also  the  doctors  allowed  to  be  worn 
on  the  Sabbath  only  in  exceptional  cases,  as  for 
instance  in  case    one    was  found    on    the    street    i*>. 


trace,  but  the  very  thing,  tin-  ornament  and  the  name-,  as 
well.  Cf.  the  Mishna:  "A  woman  must  not  go  out  (on  the 
Sabbath)  with  a  to  tap  ho  th  or  a  headdress  iJ'Cl^^D)  ^-lien 
they  are  not  vet  sewed  on,  but  may  go  out  wlu-n  they  are  sewed 
on."  The  meaning  of  that  passage  is  not  that  the  amulet  be 
sewed  to  the  hair-net  as  the  commentators  ad  loc.  explain  it. 
for  does  not  the  Mishna  allow  on  the  Sabbath  the  wearing  <>l 
all  kinds  of  ornaments  even  if  they  be  not  fastened  to  the  body? 
It  would  have  allowed  even  the  carrying  of  swords  and 
bows,  if  those  things  were  not  considered  as  thin--  to  !>■■ 
ashamed  of  rather  than  ornaments,  as  the  Mishna  (Tract, 
Sabbath,  clearly  >tates.  but  the  expression  "Sewed  on" 
refers  to  the  customary  verses  or  images.  Thus  this  ca 
exactly  similar  to  that  of  a  ring,  which  is  allowed  to  he  worn 
on  the  Sabbath  only  when  it  has  a  seal  engraved  upon  it,  but 
not  Otherwise.  We  are  the  first  to  propose  this  explanation 
and  for  tins  have  earned  the  praises  of  many  Scholar-. 

18)  "One  is  allowed  to  put  on  the  t  e  p  It  i  1  1  i  m  or  to  bring 
them  into  the  house,   one  pair  at  a  time,   in  ^a-'-  he  find  them 


—      14     — 

I-  :  .  mled 

-•  only  in  :  v. mi. mi.  the 

isually  fon.l  of  adon 
cards  men,  thej 

evil  spirits,     !'■•  as  they 

did,  I  ir  them  on 

-am-iiu  ol  the  ■ 
sufficient   protection,  rearing  t h<_-m  on 

ordinary  c 
At  the  tin  loraim  in  Babylon  the  name 

way  to  that  ol  •.- 
n.-:j--   >■--•_-■-     which  latter  at  the  time  of 
Abba j  I;  •    pillars  of  I  le  Ba  >j  Ionian 

Talim.  onsidered  as  an  approved  and  _ 

icceptcd  amulcl  century   later,  in  the 


em  in  an  un- 
|'l»  i  Hi  m.  •  ;rther 


timeofR.  Jehu. in  of  Diphta,  we  find  the  women  wear- 
ing another   kind   of   head  ornament    known  bj 
name    of  a  bsaj  i  m    (a   kind  of  bai  d    the 

liol  h  l>ecame  •  d  known  to  the  Amo- 

raim  only  by  noine.20) 


.ulet  at  all: 

living  centuries    after  the  first  auth' 

-r-oflf  count;;. 
Abba;. 

I.  Rit. 
p.  99. 

■      ■ 


—    16    — 
CHAPTER    IV. 

Tephiliim:  their  Origin  and  Form.     They  originate  in  Baby- 
lon.    Hillel,    K.    Johannan    ben    ZaUkai. 

Among  tiic  various  customs  which  the  Hebrew- 
borrowed  from  the  Babylonians  during  the  Exile,  as 
for  example  the  uomenclature  of  angels,  of  devils  and 
of  months,  there  was  also  the  use  of  anew  kind  of 
araulel  called  Tebhulim  or  Tephiliim,  as  the  word  is 
used  in  later  Hebrew  literature 21),  an  amulet  dif- 
ferent from  the  totaphoth  both  in  nature  and  in 
shape  or  form.  The  name  tebhulim  is  derived  from 
a  root  tabhal:  meaning  to  "enwrap"  or  dress  the 
head  with  ornaments 22),  and  is  very  appropriate  t<> 


2')  Th  -     .  bhullim  or  te  phi  Hi  m  are  undoubt- 

edly identical  and  even  pronounced  alike,  differing  merely  in 
orthography.  The  Babylonians  promiscuosly  used  ^212,  ^DC, 
vDB  '  rool  means  ''to  join",  and  the  Talmudic  ^212 
"entwined"  is  probably  of  1  ,  ot).  In  ferusalem  Tab 

mud  the  spelling  ia  ---    -£.-.   |         ,,  3(     the  Babylonian   1".,: 
mud  \vrit(     J>be    npan  where  tl  .,  -\p2n. 

")  I"     Ebben    Sappir  we    have    demonstrated     that 

:.   it  being  an  orna- 


this  amulet  on  account  of  its  encircling  the  head  while 
the  fillets  fall  over  the  shoulders  and  breast.  It  is  true 
thai  the  exil  >s  who  returned  with  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
had  not  adopted  the  tephilli  m.  for  no  mention  is 
mini*'  of  them  nor  throughout  the  existence  of  the 
second  temple  down  to  the  time  of  Efillel;  but  they 
were  adopted  Ivy  those  who  remained  in  Babylon, 
who  were  more  numerous  than  those  who  returned. 
Among  these  the  use  of  the  t  eph  ill  i m  continued 
even  in  the  time  of  the  Parthimis,  Imt  only  men  of 
distinction  and  rank  wore  them,  as  will  be  shown 
further  on. 

The  form  of  this  amulet   was  like  a  square  case 

with  a  bottom 
plat.-  projec- 
ting beyond 
its  edges  ami 
a  prolongation 
of  that  plate 
wrapped  over 
so   as    to  allow 


encircling  the    hcatl.    Dr.    Jastrow  <>f     Philadelphia    when   calling 
keel    it    up  in     the  ancient   dictionarie 

■ 


Amulets  I  ins.  —  Koclkin 


—     is     — 

the  fillet  which  bound  it  to  pass  through  the  prolonga- 
tion lengthwise.  The  ends  of  the  fillet  fell  across  the 
shoulders  over  the  breasl  and  down  to  the  loins  where 
they  were  -tuck  in  the  girdle. 

What  form  the  tephillim    had  in  the  time  oi 
Ezekiel  can  not  be  ascertained;  but  so  much  is  certain: 
they  encircled  the    head    and  had    appendages  term- 
inating  at  the  loins  and    there  stuck    in  the    girdle. 
Ezekiel  uses  the  expression   seruche    tebhulim. 
and    the    latter  word  is  undoubtedly   of   Babylonian 
origin  as  would  appear  from  Ezek.(xxiii.  14.  l5):"For 
when    she   saw    men    portrayed   upon    the    wall,    the 
images  of  the   Chaldeans    portrayed    with  vermilion, 
girded   with    girdles  upon    their  loins'1,    seruche 
t  e  b  h  u  1  i  m  .  i.  e. .  hanging  down  with  t  e  b  h  uli  in 
or  te  ph  i  1 1  i  rn,  •■upon  their  heads,  all  of  them  prin- 
ces   to  look  td  after  the  manner  of  the  Babylonians  of 
Chaldea,  the  land  oi  their  nativity"  etc.   Moreover  we 
see    from  these  passages  that  seruche  tebhulim 
was  a  mark  of  distinction  and  rank,  and  tebhulim 
were  the  ornaments  of  princes,  and  likewise  that  pict- 
ures were  drawn,  called  by  Ezekiel    '-"■->*• 

According  to   the    Talmud  the   first    uiention  of 


—     19    — 

tephilli  m  was  made  by  Hillel  23),  who  emigrated 
from  Babylonia  and  brought  them  along  with  him  as 
an  heirloom  from  his  mother's  father  (Talmud  .!<t. 
Trac.  Erubin.).  Nor  do  we  find  any  clear  Biblical 
paraphrase  renderingt  o  t  a  p  h  o  t  li  by  tephilli  m. 
lonathan  ben  Oziel,  the  Samaritan  Targum,  andmany 
others  (hi  not  translate  tin-  word.  The Septuagint  ren- 
ders it  periphrastically  by  dedXevrov  (something 
still  or  unmoved)  and  in  the  same  sense  did  Aquila  in 


23)  In  our  Phyl.  Kit.  we  doubted  whether  this  Hillel  was 
Ha-Zaqen  (the  Elder)  or.  Ha-Nassj  (the  Prince),  the  latter 
flourishing  a  generation  after  the  foimer.  This  doubt  was  caused 
by  mir  uncertainty  of  the  derivation  of  the  word  te  phill  i  in.  We 
there  followed  the  late  Dr.  Asher,  who  assumed  it  to  lie  a 
corruption  of  the  Greek  rJ  ipvXaHrnfiioi",  but  now  having 
found  the  name  to  he  of  Babylonian  origin  and  that  it  remained 
unchanged  down  to  our  own  lime,  we  see  no  reason  why  we 
should  not  rely  upon  the  statement  of  the  Jer.  Talmud  that  it 
was  Hillel  the  H  a-Z  a  q  e  n.  NYe  have  changed  our  opinion  on  a 
number  of  points  maintained  in  Phyl.  Kit.  on  account  ol  later 
investigations  which  prove  thai  tephillim  are  entirely  distinct 
from  to  tap  ho  th,  and  that  the  latter  never  changed  their  name, 
which  became  obsolete  together  with  the  use  of  the  thing 
tself. 


■!'  <      — 

lii>  translation  '-''  .  At  any  rate  before  Hillel  introduced 
it  the  name    tephilli  m   was  not  know  n  In    I' 

U.  Johannau  beu  Zakkai.  a  disciple  of  Hillel 
receiving  the  tephillim  from  him.  began  to  wear 
th. -in  an. 1  .li-l  not  take  them  off  his  head  the  whole 
day.    both    in    summer   and  winter.  So    the   Talmud 

ea  (Tract.  Sukka.  fol.  28).  from  K.  Johannan 
they  spread  to  his  disciples  and  their  follower,  lair 
they  were  not  worn  i>v  the  common  people,  nor  were 
they  accepted  among  the  Parthian  scholars  -,,; 


further    explanations     on   tiii-   point     see   l'hyl.     Rit. 

1  lillel's  ilis(  iples  we  find  no  mention 

phi  11  im    or  of  their    u*e.    Even    Hillel  himself  is 

having  worn   them     We  know     further    that 

26,    below.    But 

Zakkai,  through  whose  influence  they  were  changed 

in  their  form    and   contents  nes*   for   them  that 

kc   them  off  the  whole  day.    An  additional  and  very 

•    hi-  doing  (lilts  we   have   given    in   our    Ph\l. 

.   v. 

. 

"::  [rt2  r,  s^   nc  ".?'- 

.pinion 


•J  I 

Onkelos,  tin-  proselyte,  who  wrote  his  Targum 
under  the  guidance  of  1».  Eliezer  anil  l>'.  Joshua,  both 
disciples  of  R.  Johannaii  ben  Zakkai,  is  the  Eirsl  to 
render  t  ot  np  h  ol  h  by  tephilli  in:  for  the  Jam- 
niiiii  Synedrionhad  already  accepted  them  and  ordered 
placed  within  them  the  Pour  Biblical  texts,  as  will 
be  explained  further  on.  -lust  as  the  I  e  b  huli  m 
in  Babylon  were  worn  ouly  l>\  men  of  nobility  and 
rank.  ?o  the  tephilli  in  intheir  changed  form  were 
worn  only  by  eminent  scholars  and  by  presidents  of 
the  Synedrion.  Moreover  even  these  prominent  men 
could  only  wear  them  upon  receiving  special  permis- 
sion from   the  rabbinical  authorities,  and  th who 

received  this  considered  it  a  great  boon  and  an  espe- 
cial   honor-'      The   enjoyment    of    such  a  privilege 


author,  since  il  is  not  found  in  the  ['esiqtn  di  k.  Kahana 
but  after  having  examined  all  known  sources  without  finding 
that  the  Palestinian  doctors  had  ever  worn  tephilli  in,  we  have 
no  reason  to  doubt  hi-  statement  and  are  willing  to  believe  thai 
he  had  such    a  reading    before  him. 

This  we  do  the  more  gladh  since  true  criticism  requires  the 
reading  with  flit.  In  the  Pesiqta  the  word  must  have  been 
omitted. 

-•-      l   t      Tract,    Uechoroth  30  b,  where    lo  the    qui 


brought  the  esteem  and  the  confidence  of  the  | pie, 

mid  moneys  were  entrusted  to  them  without  even  the 
presence  ol  a  witness  28.  Such  men  wore  their  tephil- 
li  in  tin*  \\  hole  dav. 


CHAPTER    V. 

I     rm    of    the  T  e  p  h  i  1  1  i  m 
the     Jamnian    Synedrion;    their   change     in 
the    Time    of      the    Amoraim.       The     Samaritan 
Amulet    I  teve's  Wings. 

When  the  Synedrion  under  the  presidency  of  R. 
Johmmin  l:en  Zakkai  was  established  at  Janiniathe 
•  utside  fcim  ot  ll.e  I  h ep hill im  underwent  a 
change,  Previous  to  that  time  their  four  outer  sides 
sverecovered  with  Bible  texts  (besides  the  incantations 
and  exorcisms    inclosed     within    the    case)    ;but    the 


why  the]  v  wear  I  eph  ill  i  m 
ilso    our   Phyl.     Kit. 

1  Imud  Sect.  II.  Halachoth   I.,    and   Mi.'- 

rash  ami   Pi  cited  by  the     "Rosh    Hashanah" 

l'  o  s  c  r  a  i  t  h  a,                             I    Halachoth 
Oet  a  n  o  t  h. 


—     23 

Synedrion  at  Jamnia  resolved  thai  all  outside 
tions  1).'  transferred  to  the  inside  29 


29)    In  our    Phyl.    Kit.    in  several    places,  and   especially  on 

p.  107,  we  have  proved  that  the  change  in  the  form  of  the  t  e  |>  h  i  1- 
lim  for  the  fir>t  time  was  due  to  the  initiative  taken  by  the 
l.imnian  Synedrion.  Without  here  repealing  all  the  arguments 
there  adduced  in  support  of  the  above  view,  we  would  simply  add 
,i  few  points  gathered  by  us  during  the  decade  following  the  pub- 
lication of  that  work. 

After  the  name  tephillim  had  been  introduced  by 
Hilled  Ha— Zaqen  as  signifying  an  amulet  contaning  Biblical 
texts  and  after  that  name  lunl  gained  currency  even  in  Palestine, 
it  was  then  by  the  schools  of  the  doctors  of  the  Mishna  and  the 
Beraitha  also  applied  to  the  old  totaphoth  described  above. 
Whenever  therefore  the  Talmud  relates  that  the  first  rabbis  wore 
Tephillim,  the  ancient  totaphoth  are  meant.  But 
in  the  case  of  the  phylacteries  (piXaXTT/pta)  mentioned  in 
the   Greek   of    Matthew's  gospel     XXIII.    5).    and  in    the     Syriac 

(prp3Koi  pnnBax  pdiot  pnm&K  vj  \vsn  pnBe),  it  is  doubt- 
ful whether  the  reference  is  to  the  old  to  taphot  h  which 
the  Pharisees  are  said  to  have  amplified  and  used  a^  ornaments, 
01  to  the  tephillim  in  the  form  in  which  Ilillel  had  I 
them  from  Babylon;  for  the  Greek  renders  both  alike  by 
qtvXaxrypiov.     The     Sj  lays    that  Jesus    denounced 

the  broad  fill  the  amulets  themselves,  as  appears  from 


the  c\|.ic-m  •  i     j'im«     ST.2X   KVSI'a    is    vvc    have  elsewhere 
shown).    Hence  it   w  mill  that     they    used  to 

llcts,    as     later  was    done    by     llyrkanos  ben 
■  .nid  the  disciples  uf  K.  A<pba,   and   that   the  Syriac  called 
the    tephillim    also  X~\:s.    However  that   be,   certain  it  i*  that 
it     that    denunciation    referred   to  the     tephillim,     that    cir- 
cumstance  was  ■mo  of  i!il*   teasons   which    ptompted     the    Syned- 
hange  their  form. 

pinion   the  (Ireek   reiulering  (tfivXitnrjffjioi  ) 
is    entirely   vvi  have    shown   in    our    Phyl.    Kit. 

ily    the    amplification     of  the  >i 

nut     speak iny    at    all    of  the      totaphoth      or     tephillim 

See    I'hyl.    Kit.    p.  ico.  i  For  the    I'.t  mud  |  fr.ict     S  li  a  b  I)  a  t  h 

11   explaining  the    epithet    "man  of  the  wings"    in  K. 

Jannai's  dictum:    "Tephillim     require  .1  clean  body   like   that 

1.  the     Man  <>t'    the  i\iny>  ial    Eli.sha  was  called 

I  of  the   vvinys    S'SJD  -;*r  msec      :  he  wore  t  e  p  h  i  1- 

II  disregard    of  the  prohibition  of  the    government.    When 

1    cauyhi    by    him,     he   showed     to    the 
lat  what  he  wore  were  not    tephillim  but  dove's  wini;s. 
lie   Talmud,   of    course   in   -a\  ini^    tephillim,      rel 
the   ancient      Egyptian    totaphoth.      the    latter    name   having 

1  ve. 

Now    the   late    I  >r.    K  n  :    our  theory 

that   fhe  tephillim   were  lefcrmed   by  the   Tamilian  Synedrion, 

i  lisha  was  the 


firsl  link  in  the  family  of  [shmael  hen  Fabius  (^KS'P  ?XyOttT 
the  High  Priest,  and  a  contemporary  of  Jose  ben  foezer  ol  /.  < 
reda,  and  he  remarks  in  his  "Eon  T  e  ph  il  1  a"  i  E  1>  h  e  n  S  a  p 
p  i  r,  p.  25)  that  at  that  time  the  Hebrews  \rt-vr  subject  to  the 
Greeks,  that  it  was  the  time  before  the  Maccabees,  and  that 
therefore  the  prohibition  of  wearing  tephillim  was  made  by 
the  Greek  government  and  not  by  Hadrian  who  forbade  nol  onlj 
the  tephillim  but  all  religious  practices.  Hut  in  all  this  w  e 
are  unable  to  find  anything  to  contradict  our  theory.  For  if  in 
truth  Elisha  was  a  contemporary  of  Jose  ben  Joezer  of  Zereda 
and  the  decree  was  issued  by  the  Greeks,  we  can  understand 
fully  the  reason  why  the  latter  made  war  only  on  the  t  e  p  h  i  1 1- 
i  m.  For  being  on  hostile  terms  with  Egypt,  they  forbade  the 
wearing  of  the  tephillim,  i.  e.  of  the  F.gyptian  totaphoth 
which  might  be  taken  as  a  token  of  sympathy  between  the 
Jews  and  the  Egyptians,  and  so  they  wished  the  former  to  adopt 
instead  of  the  Greek  phylacteries. 

The  Jews  then  being  subjected  to  the  Greeks,  Elisha  was  aware 
that  disobedience  to  that  government  would  not  go  unpunished 
and  therefore  he  provided  himself  with  the  amulet  of  a  dove's 
wings  (n3V  12--),  the  symbol  of  the  Samaritans,  who,  as  the 
Talmud  relates,  had  the  figure  of  a  dove  on  Mount  GeriZim 
which  they  worshipped.  This  he  placed  in  his  pocket,  and  when 
the  quaestor  met  him  he  took  to  flight,  meanwhile  changing  the 
totaphoth  which  he  had  worn  to  the  dove's  wing-  which  In- 
had  in  his  pocket.  When  the  quaestor  reached  him  he  found 
him      wearing     the     Samaritan   amulet   against    which    he   hail     no 


26 

e   the  Samaritans  were  at  peace  with  'he    Greeks. 
let   him  ••!!   I 
It   is   unneo  Krochmal   that    the 

express  ings"  indicates  that  tlisha  bribed  the  quaestor 

with  money,  it  being  a  playful  allusion  to  the  passage  in  Psa.  Ixviii. 
"the    .'■  !ied  with  silver".  Such  a  m  aning  would 

fetched    and  would   besides  impute  to  the  Talmudists'  de- 
ception     making  them    raise  a  case    of    bribery    to  that    of  a    mi- 
racle.   The  Talmudists   were  wise  teachers,   not   shrewd  im] 
I'ut    at  :r    explanation    they    called    it    a    miracle  that 

Klisha  had   the   prudence     to     provide  himself     with     a  Samaritan 
amulet   and  thereby    save    :  e    of  i\. 

Jannai's    dictum  is   that   whovoevtr    is  not  at  the   start  prudent  in 

Id   not 
wear  tephillim   in   times  of  danger. 

We     can    now   understand    the  homiletical   explanation   of    K  • 

Johannan.   that  the  act  of  Jeroboam's  rebellion  against   KingSolo- 

msisted  in  his  takingoff  his  tephillim  in  the  latter's  presence; 

that  is.  he  took  i'ii  the  amulet  which  the  Hebrews  used  to  wear   by 

:i  as  a  token  of  allegiance  to  his  i    \ .  i ;  t  %  .  .is  we 

have   previously   .aid    that   amulets   varied   with    the   nationality  and 

it   and    were  characteristic  of   them.    Thus   by 

taking  off  his  tephillim  Jeroboam  reno. -need   his  allegiance    to  the 

lanation  sheds  light  also    upon    an    allegorical 

in   the  Talmud  in  which  it  is  maintained  thai    the  tephillim 

worn    by   God   hear  the      inscription:     "      And   who      is    like     unto 

I  i  ?  "       He  re     God 


In  addition  to  thai  they  ordered  thai  the  texts  in 
which  the  words  "and  they  shall  be  as  frontlets 
(totaphoth)  beetween  thine  eyes''  are  mentioned 
be  written  on  parchnieni  and  also  placed  inside30 
Rabbi  Johannan  ben  Zakkai  was  the  first  and  perhaps 
the  only  one  of  his  time  who  wore  the  tephillim 
continually. 

The  motive  which  prompted  the  Jamnian  Syned- 
rion  to  pass  that  law  is  to  be  Pound  in  the  fact  thai 
Jewish  Christians  had  thm  begun  to  use  those  amulets 


is     said     to    wear     an  amulet  with  the    characteristic    inscription 
meaning  that   He  always  shows    to  the  world   I  nt   care 

and  watchfulness  exercised  by  Him  over   llis  chosen    People. 

We  have  thus    far  enumerated  all   the  passages  in    which     the 
tephill  im  are  mentioned  in  connection  with  the  ancient  1. 
As  to  the   forty  measures  of     tephillim    casings    said   to    have 
been    found    at    the     destruction    <i    Bether,  there  ■:      course  the 
customary   Jewish   t  ep  h  i  1 1  i  m    are   meant. 

30J  Rabban  Gamaliel,  the  president  of  the  Jamnian  Synedrion, 
II  the  section  HamatSO  Tephillim  that  if  01 
tephillim  on  a  Sabbath-day,  whether  they  be  new  or  old 
•  ■lie-,  or  whether  t he  finder  he  a  man  or  a  woman,  he  01  she  may 
put  on,  two  pair-  at  a  time,  and  carry  them  home.  \Y< 
shown  (Phyl.  Kit.  pp.  it",  tiq)  that  by  new  tephillim  R. 
Gamaliel  meant  those  that  were  introduced  in   his  own   tune,  while 


28 

for  ]  f  their   religion,  Inn  ing  iuUl(  d   to  the 

ulilei  1 ion:   the  G(    pel  aei  ording 

to  [ohn 

Koi  the  same  reason  n  numbei  of  laws  were  added 

-     Mi  linn    I  m  exnniple:  "H  leniea  to   the     I  ep- 

I,  i  I  I  ,  mi    I'  ithority,  lie  commits    thereby  no 

,  in.'  hi  iIk    .       ml    i      :  lian  t  ota  ph  oth,  ^  hit  h 

•   i  hold  ii] the  people  and  wcr 

ongly  our  opinions, 

,      ft«  .  R.  Johannun  ben  Zakkai   by 

made  "l  t  cp  h  i  11  i  in,     It  is  further  possible 

.    the   t  ■  ph  il  li  in   did  • 

uceptance  among  the  learned  men    ol    Palestine,    K.  Jehuda 

.     R    |,  im.L.  ben  lll.ii  ..i    I.  ru  ial(  in),  while   he  allowed  old 

ced  nol  .a  all  a  i  ume,  as  we   did 

in    Phyl,    Kit.,    that   [chuda,  flourishing   foui    generations 

.   naliel,  meanl   by   old   tep  h  ill*  m  th 
U    Gamaliel  d<    ignuted  as  new   ones.        But  it  is  poi    ible  that 
ii    th.   inn.-  el    K.  Jehuda  the   !•  I  ans  had  b<  gun  to 

1. 1.  .in  ih.  ii    tephillim   with   the  letter  Shin  (1?)    and  other 
in    yet  ..I  thi   time  ol   K.  i  lama 
I.  1 1 ii, l.i  forbude  to  \v<  ai  them. 
i     l.     Kl<    i,     Die     L'otaphoth     nach     Bibel     und 
I   i  .i  .1  i  i  i ..  n.    lli    toiredelaBibli  i    Col  a  men  t  p. 

ii    144;  Hachalui    .    vol.  \  11.,  p.    I 


i  ran  ftre bul  if  lie, i  rar}  to  i  lie  emu  i ill  oi 

the  rabbi  .  maintain    the  necei   it)     of    five    toi  n 
p  h  ..t  li.  he  does  i  onmiil  tran  jrrei   ion''.  (Trad  S  n  ti 
I,  ed  ii  ii,    Pol.   88)  l'<\  the  e  five  I  oi  o  p  h  o  I  h    they 
referred  to  the  custom  of  Jewish  Chri  itiaim,   who  add- 
ed    ;i   fifth  to   the    four   u  ual    Biblical   pa    a  ■■ 
For  a     iinil.ii  reo  on    I  he)  enacted  i  M  e  n  11  h,     ei  I  ion 
Il;l  q  ;,  ,,,,< 1  s    i;  a  b  bn  )    thai  none  of  the  four  texi 
,,f  the  bep h  illi  ra     hould   be   omitted,  in  order  to 
prevenl  the  i  lib  titutii  n  "I  i  ome  text  from  the  Go  i  el 
for  tli litted ■.  U  i     further   probable   thai  the 

33)     1  hi .   Mi  Im.i   mighl   have  been  utteri  d  al  10  nl   thi    tlnn 

when   the  foui   BiMii  nl    texi  paved  on    tl I  idc  ol 

thi    t  e  phi]  I  1  m,  and  thi    [1  ivi  h  I  hrl  lit 1  I  have    added 

.  mil.    pace  filled  with  texi  1  1 fohn  1   Go  pi  1      [I    th<  n  fori 

iyi     '«fivi     tota  p  h  0  1  h",    and    nol    fiv<     texl       01     Bible 

1  '  .      bei  omi      cleai     from    anothi  1       uniq ing 

"II  one    deny  to  the    ti  p  hill  i  m    authority  1 Ii  1 

the  law",  eti  ,  B)  thi  i  meant  that  II  on< 
denounced  the  wearing  ol  teph  Mil  m  with  the  object  In 
,.  „.w    ..1    di   Iroying     the     Bibli     texta    engi  11    tl  ■  m      !  ■ 

.,    incui    puniihment,      foi     the    obligation    oi 
\  ,  phi  Hi  ...     ii    nol     baaed     on      Biblical     authority  ,     but    he 
doea    , 1    puniihi I    ii  he    attempti    to  make    addil  •  1 

the  noi  in    ,"1'  ■'  '  :  ' 

.  1. .. 


law  that  the  omission  of  the  hand  phyla<  ten  doi 
affect  the  legality  of  that  of  the  head  (Section  II  a- 
t a ch el eth)  was  enacted  b\  wa}  of  reaction  against 
the  above  mentioned  Christians,  i  >r  th  ■  latter  used  to 
cover  thru-  phylacteries  u  ith  gold  and  silver  and  wore 
them  together  with  their  cross  33),  wearing  them  al- 
ways in  pairs,  one  on  the  arm  and  one  on  the  head.  In 
Pact  ii  is  ••pun  ly  due  to  the  Christians  that  thesubject 
is  mentioned  in  the  Mishna  at  all.  The  test  proof  oi 
this  is  its  omission  in  its  proper  place,  the  tract  on 
benedictions,  where  such  subjects  as  prayer  and  devo- 
tion are  minutelj  treated.  Instead  of  this  the  phylac- 
teries are  mentioned,  curiously,  in  the  tract  on 
offerings  (Menahoth),  a  subject  which  does  not 
concern  us  at  all  in  modern  times.  Moreover  uo  men- 
tion is  made  in  the  Mishna  about  the  writing  or  making 
i >f  tephillim  or  totaphoth,  1 1 1  < » u ur  1 1  the  doctors 
go  into  the  minutest  detail.-  about  all  other  matters 
connei  ted  \\  ith  the  religious  practices  of  the  Jews  34  . 


We  have  already  demonstrated  in  Phyl.  Rit,  ; 
(and  at  length  on  p.  '>•">  under  the  heading  "  "~  ~  :  •  s 
'he    Mishna  Megilla,    "If  :c.    he 

Ice    n   dissenti  the  Jewish  Christians. 

!  hyl.     Kit.     p.  I    Ebh  e  n     Sa  i  - 

In    the    former  we    have  also   shown  that 


—     31 

The  reason  of  this  is  simple.  The  doctors  of  the  Mish- 
na  were  not  at  all  concerned  with  amulets:  they  even 
forbade  one  to  rescue  them  from  a  Eire  on  the  Sabbath 
They  allowed  the  wearingof  an  approved  amulet  on 
the  Sabbath  only  1  ecause  they  had  to  yield  to  popular 
superstition.  If  they  had  forbidden  thru,  altogether, 
the  people  would  have  refused  obedience,  for  they 
believed  that  their  life  and  happiness  depended  upon 
their  amulets:  while  the  doctors  themselves  did  not 
care  I'm-  them,  nnd  even  tephilli  m  were 
worn  by  only  a  very  lew  of  them,  and  that  upon 
extraordinary    occasions   :'"'  ■ 


■  ven  in  M  a  s  iq  ta  Sophe,  i  m,  a  later  work,  no  laws  for 
t  e  phi  1  lim  are  given,  and  they  are  mentioned  only  inci- 
dentally. 

35)  In  l'hyl.  Kit.  we  have  shown  that  neither  R.  Ga- 
maliel nor  K.  Eliezer  ben  Hyrkanos  wore  t  e  p  h  i  1 1  i  m, 
though  the  most  prominent  among  the  disciples  of  R.  Johan- 
nan  hen  Zakkai,  and  that  only  the  later  rabbis,  associating 
with  royalty,  and  a  few  others  in  the  some  position,  wore 
them,  as  a  mark  of  dignity.  See  also  ibid.  p.  104,  note  2. 
There  is  also  an  additional  proof  of  the  recent  origin  of  the 
tephillim     from     the    Beraith  '> 

they  arranged".  1  n  m  his  we  see,  that  it  was  new,  and  they 
rltd   m  t  know     1  ow  to    arrange   them. 


—    32     1- 

Aiter  the  new  form  of  the  fceph  i  1 1  i  m 
was  fixed  by  the  Jamnian  Synedrion  and  approved 
by  the  learned  Hebrews  of  that  time,  the  followers 
of  K.  Eliezer  and  H.  Joshua  began  to  seek  in 
the  Bible  some  support  for  this  form  of  the 
t  e  p  h  i  l  l  i  m.  K.  Aqiba  thought  that  the  word 
t  <»  t  a  p  b  <>  t  h  could  be  explained  aa  referring  to 
the  "four"  Biblical  texts  placed  in  the  tephilli  m. 
since  t  o  t  and  p  h  a  t  h  have  in  different  langu- 
ages each  the  meaning  of  "two'1  K.  Ishmael  was 
"t  the  opinion  that  some  support  of  the  form 
could  be  found  in  the  use  and  the  omission  of 
tin'  two  letters  Vav  I  '  )  in  the  won!  m  9  B  i  a 
as  met  with  in  the  Bible  etc.  Others  even  ven- 
tured to  find  some  indication  in  the  Bible  as  to 
the  place  where  the  t  e  p  h  i  1  lim  ought  to  be 
worn;  for  instance,  one  rabbi  was  of  the  opinion 
that  they  should  be  worn  on  the  left  hand,  basing 
In-  opinion  on  the  addition  of  the  letter  He  (  ,~  | 
m  the  word  n3T,  which  is  rery  seldom  added 
m  the  formation  of  the  second  person  in  the  Heb- 
rew language,  and  he  divided  the  word  ~3T  (thy 
hand     into  two  separate  words,  v  (hand)  and   nn3 


—     33     -- 

(weak),  "the  weak  hand"  i.  e  the  left  hand. 
Ft.  Nathan  in  a  far-fetched  manner  determined 
the  place  where  the  tephillim  should  be  worn 
from  the  words  cnettM  (and  thou  slmlt  place 
them)  and  ornwpi  (and  thou  shalt  bind  them). 
This  he  docs  by  saying  that  as  the  tying  is  usually 
performed  by  the  right  hand  the  place  of  the  ty- 
ing consequently  must  be  on  the  left  hand.  Others 
endeavored    to  find    in    the    Bible    still  other  ceremo 

nies  to  be  observed   when  tying   on  the  bephilli  m. 

I*. 
H.    Klicy.er  maintained    that  the  ceremony  of  wearing 

the  tephillim  must  be  private  and  not  public, 
and  made  it  out  very  ingeniously  by  emphasizing 
the  words  n"\*h  "]  h  (to  thee  for  a  sign),  i. 
,mr  :nnr  s'^ri'it1?  -  u  (for  a  sign  to  t  h  ee 
and  not  for  others).  Similarly  did  R.  Isaac  and 
H.   Jehuda.    See   our    Phyl.   Kit.  p.    L08. 

All  these  attempts  to  find  in  the  Bible  some 
support  for  such  things  was  with  the  intent  that 
the  people  should  adopt  the  reforms  of  the  Syned- 
rion,  and  to  put  an  end  to  their  habit  of  wearing 
talismans  of  other  kinds  which  bore  inscriptions 
engraved  on  the  outside.  The  reason  which  influ- 
enced the  Synedrion  and  the  other  learned  men 
Amulets,  Charm-,  Talismans. — Rodkinson.  9 


—     34     — 

to  change  the  form  of  the  tephillim  was  because 
they  wished  to  prevent  the  people  from  idolizing 
them,  as  those  of  other  religious  creeds  did,  and 
as  afterwards  the  Christians  idolized  the  cross  and 
the  pictures  of   their    Messiah   and    the  apostles. 

Having  then  in  view  these  two  things;  to 
strengthen  the  belief  in  the  tephillim  and  to 
prevent  their  i »*m dlt  regarded  as  objects  of  worship. 
i he  rabbis  always  in  the  first  place  endeavored  to  give 
much  value  to  them  by  describing  them  as  "God's 
Word  "  ami  by  finding  some  foundation  fdr  them 
in  the  Bible  to  oppose  to  those  who  claimed  that  there 
was  no  Bib'ical  authority  whatever  for  their  use.  and 
then  in  Lhe  second  place  they  endeavored  to  prevent 

the  < nion  people  from  wearing  them  too  often  and 

so  in  the  course  of  time  giving  them  a  superstitious 
reverence.  And  therefore  all  theirwriting  and  speak- 
ing on  the  subject  was  from  a  purely  theoretical  point 
of  view,  as  they  themselves  wore  them  either  very  sel- 
dom or  not  at  all.  (:'»'>)    But  all  these  precautions  were 


our     I'hyl.   Kit.    we   have     mentioned    all    who  did 
imt  abandon    their  u^e   of  tot  a  phot  h  or   t  e  p  h  ill  i  m,  and 

lew. 


—    35    — 

in  vain,  as  those  who  worshipped  Jesus  aa  the  Messiah 
soon  learned  to  obey  all  those  restrictions  as  Pharisees 
and  at  the  same  time  not  to  abandon  their  nun  prin- 
ciples as  will  be  shown  further  on. 

The  Jewish  Christians,  who  were  not  entirely 
separated  from  the  Pharisees  and  who  adopted  all  the 
reforms  of  that  sect  but  who  in  addition  believed  in 
Chnst  and  his  resurrection,  had  also  adopted  this  new 
reform  in  regard  to  the  tephillim.  And  so  they  also 
wrote  the  " four  texts "  on  parchment  and  placed  them 
inside  the  eases,  but  they  at  the  same  time  spared 
nothing  to  employ  everj  available  means  of  propagat- 
ing their  own  doctrines.  For  this  purpose  they  pain- 
ted the  outside  of  their  tephillim  red.  as  in  memorj  of 
Christ's  blood.  The  Pharisees  then  immediately  pas- 
se 1  a  resolution  forbidding  this  color  for  the  tephillim 
as  being  unsightly  I  M>  n<i<-!t<>ti,  35),  ami  then  the  Christ- 
ians adopted  the  threeheaded  letter  Shin  ii")  of  the 
Hebrew  alphabet  a.-  a  symbol  of  the  trinity. 

From  the  tradition  known  as*"  Halachoth  le  Moshe 
mi-Sinai "  the  trad  it  ion  given  to  Moses  trora  God  on 
Mi.  Sinai)  and  which  prescribes  the  letters  Daletb  O) 
and  Jodh  C>  for  the  tephillim^  which  are  not  admitted 
li_\  the  To8ep7ioth,  we  may  judge  that  these  two  letter-- 


—    36    - 

were  placed  upon  the  tephillim  by  the  Jewish  Christ- 
ians.    The  ~i  was  the  abbreviation  of  in  (-p)   "son  of 
David  ".  and  the  *  of  >"""  ••  Jesus  ".    These  were  used 
together  with  the  lm  the  emblem  of  the  trinity.     The 
true  meaning  ol  these  letters  they  endeavored  to  con- 
ceal from  the  Pharisees  by  explaining  than  and  <  to- 
gether with  iL")  had   the   meaning  of  HP  ''The  Al- 
mighty".    The  Jewish  christian?  employed  different 
emblems  and  colore  and  ascribed  to  them  certain  rela- 
tions to  Christ,  and  therefore  the   Hebrew  authorities 
of  those  times  forbade  also  the  painting  of  tephillim 
white  or  green    Beraitha  37),  which  before  was  per- 
mitted, and  only  the  black  color  was  allowed.     (Ibid. 
35,  Shdbbath  28  )     With  the  same  objeel  in  view  the 
Hebrew  authorities,    inasmuch  aa   they   had  not  the 
power  to  displace  the  word  nc  of  the  tephillim  even 
though  the  Jewish  Christians  gave  it  their  own  mean- 
ing, considered  it  wise  to    add  to  the  letter  shin  (e>) 
on.-  more  head,  thus  W,  making  a  Inter  which  had  no 
existence  in  the  Bebrew  alphabet,  and  explained  thai 
these  four  heads  indicated  the  unity  of  God  in  the  four 
quarters  of  the  world.    Thej  then  abolished  the  threc- 
lieaded  Shin. 
The  Amoraim  of  the  middle  <>r  the  period  when  they 


-    37     — 

flourished,  who  found  s  >  many  restrictions  in  regard 
to  the  tephUllm  adopted  by  those  before  them,  endeav- 
ored to  increase  the  number  of  restrictions.  Still  they 
did  not  want  to  abolish  the  tephUllm  altogether  as  did 
the  authorities  of  Jerusalem,  who  prohibited  their  use  on 
account  of  the  "treacherous  people"  (D'xo-i)^')  And 
although  we  find  even  among  the  Amoraim  of  Babylon 
some  who  used  to  laugh  and  jeer  at  the  use  of  tephil- 
Um  (as  for  example,  Plaimo  and  Roma  bar  Tamri.  (See 
Chulim,  13,  and  our  Phyl.  Kit.  37  and  57'.  they  never- 
theless did  not  go  further  than  to  increase  yel  more 
the  number  of  restrictions  and  in  this  way  diminish 
their  use.  From  all  this  originated  the  eighteen  rules 
and    regulations    in    regard    to   writing    and   wearing 


37)  In  the  Jerusalem  Talmud  (Berachoth  1 1.  Tar.  i) 
the  following  explanation  is  given  of  the  "Ramaim"  :  A  tra- 
veller once  on  Friday  evening  deposited  -ome  money  in  the 
hands  of  a  nun  whom  he  took  for  an  honest  one.  because  he 
wore  te  phi  Him,  and  when  the  traveller  demanded  his 
money  the  man  denied  that  he  had  received  it.  This  is  the 
explanation  given  to  the  word  C'X^  by  the  Amoraim  ;  but 
it  can  also  be  explained  as  referring  to  the  Jewish  Christians 
who  deceived  the  Pharisees  into  thinking  that  they  agreed  with 
them  in    everything. 


—     38    — 

tephillim.  It  was  all  dour  by  the  latest  Amoraim  of 
Babylon.  (88)  Afterward  the  Dumber  of  restrictions 
was  still  farther  increased,  and  at  last  they  were  for- 
bidden to  be  worn  by  women  and  common  people  and 
were  replaced  by  another  kind  of  talisman  called 
Oishrei    M  »),   and  so  the  tephillim  became 


38)     In    our  Pliyl.   Rit.   (p.    2001    we  gave   an   account    of    all 
these  Halachoth  with  the   name   of  the  author    of  each  one. 
The    author    of    the    most      of    them    was      R.    Jeremiah,     who 
emigrated  from    Babylon  :  one  of  them    is    from    R.    Hananeel, 
who     stated    that     it    originated     with     Rab.     Another   Halachah 
originated   with   R.    Jose  bar   Bibi,   who  is  mentioned  by   Fraen- 
kel    in     the     Introduction      to     the    Jerusalem      Talmud     as   being 
I       third    kin)    to     the   Amoraim.      Bibi,    his   father. 
was  not    of  Jerusalem,     but  of   Babylon  as   is  explained    in    the 
Hebrew.     These   were  all  authorities  of  the    Babylonian   Talmud 
isalem    Talmud    has     stated    any     Ha- 
ll   le     Moshe    Mi-Sinai     on    the    Tephillim. 
In    the    Babylonian     Talmud    there    are     some     Halachoth 
in    the  name        \]  11    Maimonides  and  the  Tosephat 

are  unwilling    to   admit    them.     One    Halachah    was  stated 
in     the    name    .>f   Raba    01    Rabi    Papo,   but    it    was    not    put   in 

Phyl.     Rit.    in   many    places,    and    ■ 
Dushak   in     E  bb  en    S  a  ppi  r,    , 


39 

scarce  and  in  the  course  of  time  they  were  only  known 
in  the  literature  of  the  Mishna  and  Beraitha  and 
among  the  Amoraim.  The  latest  Amoraim  who  pre- 
ceded the  Rabanim  Seboral,  raised  the  question  among 
themselves  why  the  cerem  >ny  was  so  little  in  use.  (40) 
This  is  the  history  of  the  rules  (41)  and  regulations, 
and  the  change  (42)  in  the  form  of  the  tephillim. 


40)  Many  of  the  Amoraim  were  approved  when  they  only 
once  performed  the  ceremony  of  wearing  the  tephillim. 
Among  the  good  and  pious  things  ascribed  to  Rabh,  the 
founder  of  the  Babylonian  Talmud  and  the  most  prominent  man 
of  that  time,  was  counted  the  fact  that  from  time  to  time  he 
wore  t  e  p  h  i  1  1  i  m.  The  wearing  of  t  e  phi  11  i  m  was  sban- 
doned    only    afterward    in    the   lime    of  the   latest    Amoraim. 

41  )  It  was  not  allowed  to  wear  them  when  asleep,  nor 
when  thinking  of  a  woman,  and  the  wearer  must  always  bear 
in  mind  .  S  h  u  1  c  h  a  n  Aruch,  Orach  Chaim,  378. 
Our    l'hyl.    Kit.     Ch.    VII.) 

42)  The  tephillim  of  R.  Iliva  were  tied  and  sewed 
with  common  tlax  strings  (not  with  animal  strings)  (Makkoth 
11),  Hyrkanos,  the  -on  of  K.  Eliezer  used  to  fa-ten  the 
t  eph  i  Hi  ni  with  -tnngs  of  techel  O  t  h.  We  have  given 
only  a  few  changes  in  the  form  of  tephillim  which  were 
adopted  by  the  later  Pharisees,  but  have  not  mentioned  many 
changes     adopted    by  the    Tseduqim    (Megilla)   and     by  the 


CHAPTER   VT. 

The  Isolated  and  Unexplained  Article-  in  Bereitha  on  the 
Order  in  which  the  "Four  Biblical  Texts'*  are  to  be 
d  in  the  Cases  under  the  title  p~JD  TJT3;  l'le 
Wrong  Explanation  "f  this  by  the  Different  Commenta- 
ralmud  which  led  to  Many  Misunderstand- 
ings in  regard  to  the  History  of  Tephillim;  a  Sketch  of 
the    1  'ihillim,  the    Water  of  the  unleav- 

Bread. 

The  sudden  change  made  by  the  Jamnian  Syned- 
rion  in  placing  the  inscriptions  inside  the  tephillim 
instead  of  upon  the  outside,  together  with  the  fact 
that  they  were  only  worn  by  the  learned  and  very  rare- 
-  ii  b)  them,  provoked  people  of  all  classes  to  ac- 
quaint themselves  with  the  form  and  order  of  the  ins- 
criptions. There  was  nothing  mentioned  about  them 
in  the  Mishna  except  that  there  arc  "  four  Biblical 
texts".  Even  the  fact  that  the  Synedrion  assembled 
and    passed    a    resolution  showing  that  a   majority  ot 


Samaritans,    according  to    the   opinion    >>f    Mr.    Herzfeld   ill.    p. 
ho    claims    to  have   found   the   word    tephillim    in  an 
ancient    Samaritan    manuscript.        There    were   some    who  wore 
round  tephillim,   etc. 


—     41     — 

them  were  in  favor  of  changing  the  outside  form  was 

not  mentioned  .either.      Nor  were   these  changes   in- 
cluded in  the  ten  new  reforms  adopted  by  the  sehool  of 
R.  Johannan  ben  Zakkai,  as  these  reforms  were  immed 
iately  to  be  put  in  practice.  Accordingly  tlie  Ainoraim 
began  to  occupy  themselves  with  finding  out  informa 
tion  concerning  the    inside  form  of  the  tephillim  and 
unexpectedly   there  was  found  a  Btraitha  treating  of 
this  subject.     The  author  as   well  as  the  school   from 
which  this  Beraitha  originated  was  unknown,   (ifena 
hoik,  34). 

The  Beraitha  began  as  follows  :  "  In  what  order 
shall  the  four  Biblical  texts  be  placed  (in  the  cases  of 
the  tephillim)?  In  the  following  order  :  The  texts 
beginning  with  the  words  •Sanctity  to  me'  (Ex.  xiii.l- 
10)  and  with  the  words  -When  the  Lord  shall  bring 
the.--  (Ex.  xiii,  11-16)  shall  be  placed  in  the  right ; 
and  the  passages  beginning  with  the  words  'Hear  <> 
Israel'  (Dent.  vi.  4-10)  and  [lf  ye  hearken'  (Deut.  xi. 
14-20)  shall  he  placed  in  the  left."  And  to  this  article 
wa<  annexed  the  question  :  "  But  do  we  nol  find  in 
some  places  the  contrary  order?"  This  question  as 
well  as  the  Beraitha  is  without  author.  Abbai,  read- 
ing  [he   article   and  the  question,  wished  to  explain 

Amulets.  Charms,  Talismans.— Rodkinson.  10 


-    42    — 

them  as  not  al  all  opposed  to  each  other  and  gave  the 
following  obscure  explanation,  "  ZVtereit  means  to  the 
right  of  the  wearer  and.  hevt  i'  means  to  the  righl  of 
the  person  looking  at  them  on  the  wearer."  "There  " 
and  "here"  are  in  the  Bentence  expressed  by  the 
word  ;sr.  Now  this  explanation  of  Abbai  needs  f  r  it- 
Belf  also  an  explanal  ion:  for  Abbai  did  not  ear  whether 
"there"  refers  to  l  he  Beraitha  and  "here"  to  the 
question  or  -  •■   as  in  the  Talmud  sometimes  we 

And  comments  made  first  upon  the  latter  part  of  a 
question,  as  being  fresh  in  the  memory  of  the  quest- 
ioner. 

Still   further,  from  the  question  itself  we  cannot 

distinguish  whether  il  means  thai  in  some  other  place 

it  was  found  thatthe  texts  "Sanctify  to  me"  and  "And 

when  the  Lord  shall  i  rim:  thee"  were  to  be  placed  in 

the  left  and  the  texts    "  Hear  0  Israel  "  and    "  If  ye 

hearken"  in  the  right,  or  thai   " Sanctify  to  me ''  and 

'•  Hear  * »  Israel "  were  placed  in  the  right  and  ••When 

■   Lord  shall  bring  thee  "    and    •' If  ye  hearken "   in 

;.     Hence  this   obscure  explanation   of  Abbai 

became  the  cause  of  adopting  four  differenl  styles  of 

Urn  worn   on   the   head  and  two  different  styles 

worn  on  the  hand.     These   were   from  four   different 


—    4:*    - 


authorities:  namely,  the  style  of  Rashi  I  R.Salamon  ben 
[saac)  and  Maimonides,  the  style  of  R.  Tarn.  (Jacob), 

the  style  known  as  Schemusche  Rabba,  and  the  style 
of  Rabad  (R.  Abraham  hen  David  of  Paskira).  These 
dispute  with  one  another  in  the  Talmud.  The  different 
styles  of  tephiUim  are  exhibited  in  the  following 
table  : 

The  Tephillira  worn  upon  the  forehead. 


According  ti.  Accordingto 
According  to     According  to  |    shemu,h,        Bashi  & 
Rabad.  R-    lam.  Rabba         Maimonides 

H"3K"i)  (on  wan        (ran  kpdb>    (Q'aoni  vKn) 


Right  of  Right  of  Right  of  Right-* 

th,    -\\Varer".  the  -reader."  the  'wearer'.  the_  w*ger/ 

Deut.  vi.  4-10    Ex.  xiii.  1-10  Deut.xi.14-20 


Ex.  xiii.   1-10 


ycc? 


^  zn? 


ns  rrm 


Ex.  xiii.  11-1*5    Deut.  xi.  14-20  Ex.  xiii.  11-16  Deut. vi.  4-10 


»3  rrm 


yoe> 


Deut.  xi.  14-20     Ex.  xiii.11-16   Deut.  vi 


'3  mm 


nx  rrm 
Deut.  vi.  4-10     Ex.  xiii.  1-10 


rrj* 


4  10  Ex  xiii. 11-16 

»a  rrm 


Deut.xi.  14-20  Ex-  xii.  1-10 

ds  rrm  ''mtip 


The  Tephillim  worn 


upon  the  arm. 


A >rding  to  both 


Ex.  xiii.      1-10  -•-""" 

Ex.  xiii.   u-16  »arrm 

Deut  \i    14-20  zs  rrm 

Deut  vi.    4-10  •;•:•-•• 


According  to  both. 


Ex.  xiii.  l-i"  'h  ",_,P 

Ex.  xiii.  U-16  'Snw 

Deut.  vi.  -i  i"  pop 

Deul   \i  14  20  =s  rrm 


—     U     — 

[f  there  were  no  commentaries  upon  the  above- 
mentioned  Reraitha,  we  would  explain  it  as  follows: 
The  question  as  to  the  order  of  the  four  Biblical  texts 

does  nol  relate  to  tl 'der  of  their  position  after  being 

located  inside  the  cases,  bul  to  the  order  in  which 
they  used  to  be  engraved  on  the  outside  of  the  cases  of 
the  tephillim.  They  were  supposed  to  have  remained 
in  the  Bame  order  after  they  were  placed  inside  the 
tp.phillim.  Upon  the  question  then  fo'lows  the  answer: 
The  texts  Ex.  xiii  1-10  and  Ex  xiii.  11-16  were  to  he 
placed  on  the  right  (/.  e.  the  writing  began  at  the 
right  side  of  the  cisc)  and  the  texts  Deut.  vi.  4-10  and 
Deut   xi   14-20  on  the  left,  thus  : 


li  should  be  borne  in  mind   that  the  Hebrew  reads 
from  right  to  left  in  the  direction  of  the  arrows. 


—     45     — 

"The  reader  will  read  them  from  his  righl  to  the 
left  in  the  same  order  as  they  are  in  the  Bible"   (43) 

First  Ex.  xiii.  1-10  and  then  Ex.  xiii.  11-16 etc.  And 
to  the  question  implying  that  there  is  some  place  in 
which  it  is  said  that  the  order  of  these  texts  is  thecon- 
trary,  Abbay  answered  that  it  meant  that  the  first  two 
texts  were  so  written  as  to  be  at  the  left  of  the  person 
wishing  to  read  them,  which  is  at  the  right  of  the  per- 
son wearing  them  and  that  the  last  two  texts  were  at 
the  right,  but  in  the  same  order  as  they  are  in  the 
Bible.  According  to  Abbay  there  is  no  difference  how 
the  texts  are  except  that  they  must  be  read  in  the  or- 
der as  they  are  in  the  Bible  :  namely,  Ex.  xiii.  1-10 
previous  to  Ex.  xiii  11-16  on  one  side;  and  Deut.  vi.  4- 
10  previous  to  Deut.  xi.  14-20  on  the  other.      To  con- 


43)  The  sentence,    -'The  reader  will   read  them  from  the 

right as  they  are  in  the  Bible  "  belongs  to  the  text  of  the 

anonymous  Beraitha  and  not  to  Abbay's  explanation.  The 
Tosephoth  endeavored  to  give  their  own  explanation  but  did 
not  succeed:  Rif  (Alfasi)  quoting  the  Bc-raitha  omits  alto- 
gether the  sentence  mentioned  expressing  his  opinion  that  in 
his  view  there  is  no  difference  in  what  order  they  are  placed. 


—     46    — 

linn  our  view  of  this  subject,  that  it  refers  to  the  time 
when  the  inscriptions  were  on  the  outside  of  the  cases, 
we  will  ([note  what  Ahbai  himself  said  when  he  heard 
ll.  Hananel  in  tin-  name  of"  Rabh"  utter  a  new  law 
concerning  the  change ol  the  order  of  the  four  texts. 

U.  Uananel  14)  said  in  the  name  of  Rabh  that  if  the 
orderof  ihe  four  texts  were  changed  from  that  adopted, 
ep/iUlim  should  be  considered  not  to  be  in  comp- 
liance With  the  requirements  ami  ought  not  to  be  worn. 
A.bbai  said  thai  he  understood  this  to  be  only  in  case 
the  change  was  made  by  placing  the  second  texts  first 
an  I  via  versa,  but  that  if  they  w.t,-  changed  from  the 
right  side  to  the  left  it  made  no  difference,  i,  e.  no 
difference  was  made  so  long  as  the  four  texts  could  be 
read  (whether  beginning  al  the  right  or  left)  in  the 
order  as  ihej  are  in  LheBible.  Rabha,  who  was  un- 
willing to  admit  that  Rabh  said  what  R.  Hananel 
quoted   and    who  did   not    regard   it.  as  Ahhai  did, 


rhis  l<  Hananel  was  a  professional  writer  of  ttpkillim 
and  this  was  att<.-r  Rab's  death.  R.  Hananel,  too,  invented 
the  l><)tt<>m  plate  (town  rV/iiw,  and  in  the  name  of 

K:il >  bi  to  have  been  given  to  Moses  on  Mt,  Sinai. 


—     47     — 

worthy  any  commentary  al  all,  began  to  oppose  it  by 
a  sholastic  sarcasm  againsl  Abbai,  saying  :  "Whj  do 
you  not  consider  it  in  compliance  with  the  require 
ments  if  the  change  is  made  in  placing  the  second  text 
lirsi  and  vice  versa?  Probably  because  the  firsl  texl 
which  is  out  of  the  shadow  gets  into  the  shadow  ?  Bj 
this  Raba  meant  to  say  :  "There  is  no  difference  to 
one  reading  the  inscriptions,  as  they  are  both  before 
his  eyes,  whether  1 1 1 i -  or  that  text  be  firsl  in  order  , 
but  probably  there  was  some  difference  to  the  author 
of  the  Beraitha  who  insisted  thai  Ex.  xiii.  1-10  and 
Dent.  vi.  4  10  should  be  out  of  the  shadow  and  nothing 
should  be  in  their  way.  (45)  Lfso,  the  author  prob- 
ably insisted  that  the-  texts  second  in  order  must  be 
each  in  its  shadow,  i.  e.  the  second  texl  on  the  rig 
be  in  the  shadow  of  tin.'  right  and  the  second  texl  on 
the  left  in  the  shadow  of  the  left.  Consequently  your 
opinion  (O  A.bbai)  on  this  subject  has  no  foundation  I 
But  my  opinion  is  that  this  question  of  Bab's  is  R. 
Hananel's  own  invention,  and  that  he,  wishing  to  give 


45 j    That  is,  at  the  <-nd  whore  one  would  begin 
the  u-xt. 


—     48     — 

it  weight,  uttered  it  m  Rab'e  name  (46).  Bui  inreal- 
it\  in  whatever  manner  the  texl  arc  placed  they  are  in 
conformity  to  the  requirements. 

If  now  all  the  different  commentators  had  taken 
into  consideration  all  we  have,  they  would  have  seen 
thai    the  question   regarding  the  order  of  the  "four 


were   then  done,  as  can  be  seen  from  the 

ample:   "Sometimes  the   Amorai  told  a  falsehood 

,    ins    opinion    i<>    a    known  authority   in   order  to 

make- others   adopt    his   opinion,   as  in   Erubin  5 1  it  is  plainly 

said  that  such  and  such  an  opinion  has  no  basis  but  is  ascribed 

to  an  authority  to  give  it  more  value."     Gufe  Halachotk,^zx. 

498.     Dr.    Jellinek  in   his    work   "The    Collection    oi   Rules'' 

the  same.     In  our  journal  ffa-lCol,   vol.  vi.   p.  12  the 

following  instance   is  quoted:  "R.  Huno  bar  Isaac  quoted  to 

R.   X.i.  hman  a  certain   Halachah  from  his  contemporary,    R. 

Huno.     R.  Nachman,  who  could  not  believe  R.  Huno  to  have 

said  it,  1  nd  a   messenger 

iscertaln  it ;  whereupon    R.  Huno  bai  iring  the  con- 

sequences. 1  onfessed  that  the  quotation  was  his  own  invention 
but  that  he  ascribed  it  to  R.  Huno  to  give  it  more  authority." 

111       S ur  work  h    Justice  ". 

in    detail.     R.  [ohannan  -aid.  openly 
:  ian  i>  not  t..  be  blamed  tor  ascribing  his  opinioi 
known  authority.      See  I'hyl.    Rit.  37  59  tor  mon 


—     49     — 

texts"  refers  to  the  time  when  the\  were  engraved 'on 
the  outside  of  the  tephillim  :  since  Raima's  words, 
"Because  they  need  to  be  out  of  the  shadow  "  musl 
refer  to  inscriptions  upon  the  outside  and  not  upon 
the  inside,  as  within  the  parchments  are  in  separate 
compartments  covered  with  skin  and  hair  and  sewed 
up  with  animal  strings  (DH^i)  and  there  [g  no  plane 
for  a  shadow  at  all.  If  this  had  been  observed  ami 
cited,  all  these  scholastic  disputes  would  have  been 
prevented,  and  we  should  not  have  four  different  styles 
of  tephillim{tf)  considered  to  be  in  perfect  compliance 
with  the  requirements,  in  fact  nine  styles  (48)  con- 
sidered to  be  in  perfect  compliance  with  the  require- 
ments. (m^DB  pBD  nnca  pBD)  But  to  our  great  reg- 
ret all  the  commentators  have  understood  the  reference 
to  be  to  the  order  of  the  texts  upon  the  inside  of 
the  tephillim,  and,  finding  greal  difficulty  in  explaining 
the  obscure  words,  they  took  R.  Hananel's  sayings  as 
littered  of  God  Himself,  and  so  disagreeing  as  to  their 


47)  See  Phyl.  Rit.  145,  but  there  by  mistak  istead 
of  4. 

48)  See  Phyl.   Rit.   p.  14?.  bul  - 
for  5. 

Amulets,  Charms,     Talismans.— Rodkinson.  11 


—     50     — 

meaning  were  aeparated  into  different  sects.  But  inas- 
much as  they  were  all  prominent  and  considered  ^reat 
authorities  in  Jewish  Rabbinical  Literature,  and  since 
the  arrangements  of  the  texts  produced  the  four  vari- 
eties of  tephUlim,  we  consider  it  our  duty  to  explain 
all  their  theories  1 1  > 


es  may  l»e  given  which  show  the  manner 
■  f  disputing  and  commenting  as  <  :irri«-.i  on  by  the  authorities 
of  the  Talmud  ami  which  exhibit  the  great  difference  in  man- 
ner  between  those  of  the-  different  perio  Is,  as  the  Tenaim,  the 
Amoraim,  the  Gaonim,  etc.   The  Tenaim    (first  century)   com- 

.it  authority. 

The  Amoi aim' (second  to  fift  mented  upon  the 

of    the    Tenaim    and     were    by     no    means     sparing 

of  their    critici3m     if    in     their    judgment     what    they    com- 

mented  upon  could  not  stand  it.     If    they    found   no   support 

t«>r  ail  opinion  elsewhere  and   it  seemed   to    them   to  have    no 

.     iation,  they  simply  denounced  it.  The  later  Raba- 

nim,    on    the  contrary,    w  u.  -never  al- 

.    themselves    to  criticise,  but    took  every    word  of  their 

predeces   ors  as  oi  indisputable  authority  and  commented  upon 

d  and  every  stroke   of  the  pen  in  so  many  different 

sentence  there  were  hundreds  of  comrnen- 

.  ions 

In  proof  of  the  foregoing  we  cite  the  following  :     ••  There 


-    51    - 

is  one  instance  when    a  Tana  said  plainly  :     "  I  cannot  grasp 
that  saying,    i.e.    it  does  not  stand  criticism,"    and   R.  Aqiba 
responded:    "  I  will  explain  it."   The  terms  and   rules  were : 
"It     should     be    read     in     another     way,      and     not     the 
way  it  is  here"    (p  X^S  |3  STipn  !>X)  "  «  ^  has  no  connection 
here,  refer  it  to  some  other  place"  (Qip^  in:n  jsob  pJ»  «'«  D* 
in«),     commenting   upon   Ex.    xxi.    24    to  show    that    the    in- 
Huired  person  shall  be  satisfied   with   a  money  compensation, 
and  not  by  injuring  his  damager.     These  terms  which  are  met 
with  in  the  essays  of   the    Tenaim  may  serve    as  proof  of  our 
statement  that  with  all  their  respect  for  the  Bible  they  did  not 
scruple    to    subject    it    to  their    criticism.      Hat  further.      The 
Amoraim  in  commenting  upon  the    Tanaim  did    not    on    their 
part  hesitate   from    subjecting  the   opinions  of  the  Tanaim  to 
criticism.     They  first  asked  :    -  Where  did  they  get  it  from?" 
If  they  failed  in    finding  an  origin  for  it,  they  t.ied  to  explain 
,tas    best    they  could,   saying:     ■•  It  is  omitted   and  means  so 
and  so  ■•,  or  .-h  does  not  matter  much",  or  simply,  "Exclude 
it  from  here  ".      For  example,  one  quoted  a  certain   Halachah 
/,   Moshe  mi~Sinai  in   the   name  of    R.   Johannan.   and    it    was 
"split  to  pieces",    i.  e>  it  was  directly  opposed  by  saying  »  It 
has  never  been  said  "  or    «<  It  has  no  foundation  in    common 

sense  ". 

The  Rabane  Seborai  (sixth  century)  and  the  Gaonim 
(seventh  and  eight  centuries)  followed  in  the  way  of  their  pre- 
decessors, the  Tenaim  and  the  Au.orai.n.  and  commenting 
upon  them  omitted  some  sentences  and  added  others  as  can 
be  shown   by  the  expression    « They  did  not  say  that"    etc. 


(See  /.ur  Geschickli    i  ■   Tradition^  by  A.  H.  Weiss,  and 

many  places  ill  <>ur  own  work). 

On  the  other  hand,  as  we  have-  said  the  Kabanim  (ninth 
century  and  later)  did  not  allow  criticism  at  all  and  took  every 
word  of  iheir  prede<  ita       authority.    They 

did  not  allow  any  doubt  to   enter  their  heads  concerning  their 
authority  even  when  the  vere   utterly  opposed  to 

reason    and   common    sense,  and    they  applied  them  as    they 
The   Gaon    K.    Sherira,    the   father  of  the 
well-known    Hai.Gaon,  the  latest    oi    the  Gaonim,  maintained 
that  if  one  of  theGaonim  •■  -aid  it.  it  is  so  "  ;  because  the  same 
God  to  Moses,  although    this   be   not   proven,  and 
anybody  disputing  it   is  as   if  opposed    to  God's   Word.     Dr. 
In  his    Zur  Geschichte  der  jued.   Tradition    maintains  that 
this  wa  •  count  of    the    Karaites  who  were  unwilling 

lo    give   authority    to    the  commentators).     If  then  such  auth- 
ority is  given  to  a  Gaon,  there  is  no  doubt  that  a  Tana  or  an 
.  not  be  critisizedat  all. 

on,  it  is  no  wonder  that  the 
.  hange  of  one  Utter  in  a  word  resulted  in  the  writing  of  vol. 
times  upon  volumes  and  the  adoption  oi  hundreds  of  restric- 

l'lu-  following  instance  will  illustrate  this,  R.  Jehuda  being  once 

i   impany    of    friends  advised  the  houskeeper    not   to  use  for 

any  other  water  than  that  kept  in  the  house,   and  he 

n    six    words       ""L"    Q'D3    S\xr,-Ns-':x     * 

\   .man   should  not  knead  with  other  than  our  water  .       The    reason 


-      53     — 

was  that  other  water  might  have  been  poisoned  by  snakes  which 
are  abundant  in  those  countries.  R.  Jehuda  said  this  in  reference 
to  the  dispute  in  the  Beraitha  (Terumath  VI.)  where  one  main- 
tained that  bread  made  with  water  kept  in  an  uncovered  vessel  out- 
side the  house  should  be  burnt,  even  it  it  were  bread  of  Terumah. 
R.  Nehemiah  was  of  the  opinion  that  the  snake  poison  loses  its 
power  when  brought  into  contact  with  fire,  and  therefore  that  the 
bread  might  he  used.  To  avoid  this  R.  Jehuda  advised  the  use 
of  domestic  water  which  he  expressed  by  the  word  (WB>)  our. 

R.  Mathua,  who  lived  sixty  years  after  R.  Jehuda,  happened 
to  be  m  the  city  of  "  Papuni"  and  on  a  certain  occasion  (prob- 
ably having  some  objection  to  the  use  of  the  water  of  that  city) 
lectured  in  public  about  using  the  water  which  collects  in  the 
public  streets,  and  he  quoted  R.  Jehuda's  original  words:  "A 
woman  should  not  knead  with  other  than  our  water  ".  The  peo- 
ple present  understood  R.  Mathua  to  h.ue  brought  some  water 
along  with  him  because  of  his  using  the  word  -'our."  They  there- 
fore came  to  him  the  next  day  with  vessels  to  get  some  of  tins 
water.  Then  R.  Mathua  explained  in  the  Talmudic  language  that 
he  meant  domestic  water,  namely  (Wn»Kp  XJVin  X'?3  NJN) 
using  the  word  K7T2T  (d'baitha  with  an  («)  at  the  end,  having, 
the  meaning  "domestic".  In  course  of  time  the  word  fbaitha 
was  incorrectly  copied  and  the  Aleph  (X)  at  the  end  was  chan- 
,  Vav.  mi.  which  would  make  it  mean  -to  remain  over 
night".  The  Rabanim,  finding  the  word  in  this  changed  form 
(Mvri),  concluded  that  it  related  to  the  Matzoth  (unleavened 
bread,  used  at  the  Passover  and  therefore  maintaiiu  d  that  the 


—    64     — 

ised  in  making  Matzoth  must  remain  over  night  in  the 

house  before   it   is   used.     Neither    R.   Jehuda  nor  R.  Mathua 

mentioned    this,    but    it    »  .  i    simply   because  these 

words,,!  k.  Jehuda  are  found  in  that  part  of  the  Talmud  which 

DTI39)-      The    later  Rabanim 

r  volume  upon  this  subject  ^See  our  journal 

//./•A  .  '.  etc.).     Still  they  cou  d  not  give  the 

ition  of  why  they  referred  this  to  trie  Matzoth,  and 

ire    to    investigate  where    R.  Jehuda  got  it  from 

r.cr  hi  ■■•■      '  ...  before  his  time. 

But  this  is  nothing  compared  with  what  has  been  written 
upon  the  short  sentem  e  of  eight  words  originating  from  Abbay 

"Here    it    means  t"   the   right  oi  the  reader  ami  thereto  the 

1  rom  these  eight  words  have  resulted 

countli  I  commentators  of  the  Talmud 

ning  the  different  styles  oi  tephillim. 

in  the  name  of  the  Gaonim,  and 

t    tt   R.  Hai  Gaon  wore  his  style  oi  tephillim 

:    words.       The  final 

tated    (Remark  on    Shitlchan  Aruch) 

it    .  .    are  all 

used   1;.  he  enjoys  a  greater  Divine  blessing. 

This  last  statement   was  made  i  i 

my  st  ...    hould  tail  to  be  in 

the  requirements,  and   that  God's   word  be   not 

in  spite  of    R    Hananel'9 


—     55     — 

Rashi  (R.  Solomon  Isaaki),  the  chief  of  comment- 
ators, quotes  his  comment  upon  the   Beraitha   men- 
tioned from  Afenahoth  34.     "  What  was  their  order  ?" 
Rashi  :     The   order    in    which    they    are    be    placed. 
•'There  it  means  at  the  right  of  the  reader."     Rashi  : 
When  the  reader  stands  opposite  the  wearer,  then  the 
right  of  the  reader  is  the  left  of  the  wearer.     -'And 
the  person  looking  at  them  roads  ihem  in  they  way 
they  are  in  the  in  order."     Rashi:  That  is,  the  first 
written  in  the  Bible  is  to  be  read   firs!   and  the  last 
written  is  to  be  read  last:   and  consequently   in  the 
Beraitha  where  it  is  said  thai  the  two  texts  ofBxodus 
nuist  be  on  the  right  hand,  the  right  of  the    reader  is 
meant,  and   where  it  is  siid  the  contrary,  the  left  oi 
the  wearer  is  meant,  which  is  the  right  of  the  reader. 
From  this  comment  of  Rashi  in  such  detail  which  is 
contrary   to  his  custom,   and    from  his  repeating  the 
comment  twice  in  different  words,  we  see  that  Rashi 
was  in  great  difficult}'  to  explain  it,  and  he  wished  to 
find  s  me  basis  lor  his  comment  ;  and  so  finding  the 
expression.    "  And  the  reader  shall  read  them  in  or- 


Eour  words  equally  obscure,  m^DB  rrnWlD  *f?T\7\  EX.  "  If 
the  four  texts  are  changed  in  order  the  tephillim  are  considered 
not  in  compliance  with  the  [requirements,"  /      •  ■  spoiled. 


—    66    — 

der,"  lie  explained  it  to  mean,  "  in  the  order  as  they 
an-  written  in  the  Bible".  Bui  with  all  his  detailed 
explanations  Rashi  did  not  sufficiently  explain  what 
relation  there  ia  between  the  reader  who  sees  only  the 
outeido  of  the  tephiUim  and  the  texts  which  are  sewed 
up  within  the  tephiUim.  To  oppose  this  commentary 
of  Rashi,  his  grandson,  R.  Tam,  rightly  asks  as  fol- 
lows :  If  the  author  of  the  Heraitha  meant  that  the 
texts  should  be  placed  in  the  order  as  they  are  in  the 
Bible,  why  did  he  interrupt  tie-  sentence  with  the 
words  "right"  and  "hit"  hand,  when  he  might 
plainly  have  said,  "The  texts  Ex.  xiii,  1-10,  11-16: 
Deut.  vi  4-10.  \j.  14-20  as  they  are  one  after  another 
in  the  Bible",  which  would  be  better  than  saying  the 
first  two  on  the  right  and  the  last  two  on  the  left  ? 

And  therefore  R.  Tam  was  led  to  explain  the 
llnaitha  as  follows :  The  la<t  two  texts,  Pent.  vi.  4- 
10  und  Deut.  xi.  l  I  20  should  !>e  placed  in  the  left- 
hand  com|  arlmcnt,  i.  < .  the  last  text,  Deut.  xi.  14-20, 
should  i»-  placed  in  the  third  compartment  and  Deut. 
\i.  HO  in  tin-  la-t  one.  The  sentence,  "And  the 
reader  -h;dl  read  them  in  the  order  as  they  are  in  the 
Bible"  refers  to  the  professional  write)-,  /.  e.  that  he 
when  writing  them  should  read  them  first  in  the  order 


—     57     — 

as  they  arc  in  the  Bible  and  then  write  them  in  the 
same  way,  first  Deut  vi.  4-10,  then  Dent.  xi.  14-20, 
but  he  must  write  Deut.  vi.  4-10  at  the  end  of  the 
parchment  and  leave  an  empty  space  for  Deut.  xi.  11- 
20.  which  must  be  placed  before  the  f  rmer. 

The  commentators  of  the  Talmud  who  are  called 
lUitih-  Tosphat  expressed  their  opinion  that  the  He- 
raitha  was  explained  in  the  above  eenseby  II   ffananel 

Rabad  (R.  Abraham  ben  David  of  Paskira),  who 
could  not  agree  with  all  these  different  explanations 
of  the  Beraitha  attacked  Maimonides,  who  approved 
Rashi's  explanation,  with  the  following  argument  : 
••The  author  (Mainiunides)  explains  the  meaning  of 
the  Beraitha  to  be  at  the  right  of  the  person  who 
wishes  to  read  the  tephillim  and  the  question  annexed 
to  the  Beraitha  to  mean  at  the  rightol  the  wearer, 
but  it  is  strange  that  the  Beraitha  chose  the  "  reader  " 
and  not  the  ••wearer",  who  wears  the  tephillim  and  is 
logically  connected  with  it.  (Refutations  of  Rabad 
against  Maimonides'  works).  The  way  Rabad  explains 
theBtraitha  is  that  "t.here'Mn  Altai's  explanation 
relates  to  another  ar  icle  which  maintains  the  contrary 
to  the  firs!  Beraitha,  and  "here"  to  the  firsi  Beraitha. 
According  to  liabad's  explanation,  the  space  in 

Amulets.  Charms,   Talismans.— Rodkinson.  12 


-    58    — 

which  according  to  Rashi  and  K.  Tain  Ex.  xiii.  1-10 
was  i"  be  placed  was  to  be  reserved  for  Ueut.  vi.  4-lu 
and  the  -pace  in  which  according  to  Rabbi  Tana  Ex. 
xiii.  11-16  was  to  be  placed  should  be  reserved  for 
Deut.  \i.  11 -'J<>  See  the  table  on  p.  21,  second 
column. 

Bui  all  these  opinions  regarding  this  subjeci  were 
only  theories  and  were  never  brought  into  practice,  as 
if  these  reverend  men  ever wore  tephillim  or  saw 
them,  as  is  stated  by  \\.  Isaac  (called  Hi),  who  was  one 
ofthetirsl  authorities  of  Tosphat,  in  his  own  language. 
(Stutbbath  49  and  Phyl.  Rit.  78.) 

The  Shemushe  Rabba,  who  wanted  to  apply  them 
practically,  adopted  Rashi's  opinion  concerning  the 
writing  ol  the  \-  xts,  but  the  contrary  as  to  their  situ- 
ation. Both  arc  written  in  the  same  order  but  exactly 
reversed  as  placed  in  the  compartments.  See  table  p. 
21,  third  and  fourth  columns  compared. 

All  of  these  opinions  would  have  been  con- 
sidered simply  as  private  and  personal  ones  and 
as  of  no  greal  importance  were  it  not  for  the  fact 
that  great  authority  was  given  to  the  statement  of  R. 
Hanancl  that  if  the  order  of  texts  were  changed,  the 
tephillim  were  considered  as    invalid    (possul).     This 


caused  each  one  to  maintain  strongly  his  own  opinion 
and  to  oppose  the  opinion  of  others  as  not  complying 
with  the  requirements.  Hence  arose  the  greal  variety 
of  styles  and  opinions. 

And  therefore  ihere  is  n  •  other  way  for  a  man  to 
do,  who  wishes  to  perform  the  eeremony  of  the  tephil- 
lim  and  he  sure  he  is  right,  than  to  wear  four  different 
styles.  And  if  he  wishes  to  he  certain  as  to  the  further 
position  of  the  texts,  whether  vertical  or  horizontal 
etc.,  he  would  have  to  wear  nine  different  stvles  ! 


—    r>n    - 


CHAPTER  VII. 

The  Abolition  of  the  Practice  <>t  wearing  Tephillim   in  the 
I  the  later  Amoraim  ;  the  Renewal  of  the  Custom  in  the 
i  ihe  Gaonim    ami   throughout  the  whole  period  during 
which  the  number  of  the  Kerait*  Dis 

the  style  which  R.  Hai  Gaon  used  to  wear:  their  Aboli- 
tion in  the  last  centuries  of  the   "Fifth  Thousand"   according 
Jewish   Calendar:  and   their  being   revived   by  Smag 
iucy    and   the  Cause   of  this.  Christianity  and  the 
Tephillim,   i he  two  Shins. 

It' wo  study  carefully  the  history  of  tephillim.  we 
shall  Sod  an  explanation  of  the  fact  that  they  received 
so  much  attention  from  the  Amoraim  of  the  middle  of 
their  period  D'tflfoxn  D'jmoKn  and  why  so  many  laws 
were  made  (in  the  days  of  R  Joseph  Abbai  and  Rabha) 
which  were  always  opposed  to  the  practice,  and  a  so 
win  we  find  no  mention  of  them  in  the  days  of  the  later 
Amoraim 


—    61     — 

In  process  of  time,  when  the  Jewish  Christians 
began  to  assimilate  with  tin-  new  converts  to  Christian- 
ity from  other  nations  and  the  number  of  Christian- 
became  greater  than  that  of  the  Jews  and  there  arose 
a  total  separation  between  them,  then  the  tephillim 
were  abolished  among  the  .Jews,  as  ifthere  is  no  cause, 
there  is  no  effect.  In  the  meantime  among  other  nat- 
ions the  custom  of  wearing  talismans  began  to  grow 
less  little  by  little.  Christianity,  which  then  began  to 
spread  very  rapidly,  did  a  great  deal  towards  abolish- 
ing tin-  use  of  talismans.  So  did  the  Moslem  religion 
five  centuries  after  the  birth  of  Christianity.  Taking 
all  these  things  into  consideration,  we  need  not  wonder 
why  wo  find  no  trace  of  talismans  in  the  days  of  the 
latest  Amoraim  and  the  Rabanim  Seborai. 

Tnev  would  have  become  disused  and  forgotten  al- 
together were  it  not  for  the  rise  of  a  new  sect  called 
the  Karaim  (Keraites)  or  Anonim,  in  the  days  of  Mar 
Rab  Jehudaj  Gaon,  (774  A.  I).)  This  sect  turned  their 
backs  upon  the  commentators  of  the  Bible  and  denied 
their  authority,  laughing  and  jeering  al  them.  They 
took  as  a  guide  in  religious  matter.-  the  Samaritan 
and  the  Zadukier  Pentateuch  and  claimed  their  own 
commentaries  as  the  only  right  one-  ,  as,  for  instance, 


they  expluiued    m« — :.—:•_•■■  Dmcpi   (and  ihou  shall 
fasten  iliem,  aud  place  them  for  a  to  mean 

that  they  should  always  be  borne  in  mind,  in  the 
"i  ••  Sel  me  as  a  seal  upon  thine  heart  ".    (Caut.  - 
The  birth  of  this  sect  aflbrded  a  motive  to  the  Gaoniin 
to  revive  a  greal  Dumber  of  obsolete   rules  and  laws, 
amung  which  were  those  concerning  the  ttphilliin,,    in 
regard  to  which  they  made  new  laws  besides.   (50) 


our  Phyl.  Kit.  we  i  quest- 

ion asked  by  R.  Jehudai  Gaon,  whether   a    business  man  who 
the    habit    ol  studying  every  day  a  few  chapters  of  the 
Mishna    should   wear  the  lepkillim  during  the  time  of  prayer 
:  whether  only  prominent  men  should 
wear    t lit- in  v    men    not,    in  order  not   to    appear 

■  .  among   the  rest  of  the  people  ?     1  rom  the  answer  of 
R.  Hillai  Gaon  it  appears  that  the  public  wearing   <>f   tephiliim 

hief  Rabbis,   and    for  them    a  i 

height,    that  of    thi  ed.    (  ither   Rabbis 

and  tlu-ir  disciples  were  allowed  oniy  to  wear  them  the  height 

1'  •■      •  .  that 

ight    1 1 « < i   be    seen   publicly  and  appear  independent  in 

•'t  their  chiefs,  wearing  the  same,  as  the  latter.   In 

mim",  published  in  Lycke,  it  is  to  be 

found  that    discipli  wear  tgphillim  the 

er.     ihi  Beth  iaim    27,  the 


_     63 

foregoing  is  ascribed  to  R.  Hai  Gaon,  but  in  different  words.) 
R.  Shirira  Gaon  was  once  asked  the  following  question  :  "Why 
do  not  the  mosl  people  obey  (^TD)  them  (the  tephillim)!  " 
And  also  he  was  asked,  if  scholars  are  allowed  to  wear  tepkilKm 

what   was   his  own  habit  and  that  oi  hiss.  1 1    in  regard  to 

this.     In  answer  to  these  questions  he   said  nothing  positive 
but  spoke  in  such  a  way  that    his    words    could  be  understood 
in    both  a   positive  and  negative  sense.     In    Shaloth   and    '/'< - 
shuboth  Gaone  Misrad,  printed  in  the  journal   Botte  Torah,   Vol. 
IV.    and     in    Weiss'    Zur    Geschichte   u.s.w.,    R.    Sherira's  own 
words  are   cited  as  follow.  :    "The  commandments  (niXD)   are  of 
two  kinds  :    some  of  them  are  obligatory,  and  if  they  are  not  per- 
formed,  it  is  considered    a    sin;  others    are  not    obligatory  and  the 
matter  is  left    to    the  performer,  who  if  he  performs  them  receives 
a   heavenly  reward  nrj').       For  instance,  one    who  is  in  the  habit 
of  giving  alms  gcis  a  compensation  {-\2V  for  doing  it,  but  it  is  not 
a  sin  if  he  does  not  do  it,  as  it  is  if  he  does   not    perform    Tephilah 
prayer),   Tsitsith  (fringes),  and   Sukkoth    (the  ceremony  of  dwel- 
ling  in    a    summer  bootli),    when  he  loses   a    reward  in  heaven." 
Now  if  he  count.     Tephila,     Tsitsith,    and    Sukkoth    among    those 
considered  a.  a  sin  d  not  performed,  a...:  does  no!  mention 
Um,    we  may  judge  that  they  did  not  caie  much  foi  it.      And    this 
agrees    with    what   he   has   said  in  his  answei    ..-aiding   tephillim 
See  Phyl.    Kit.  74,  answer    5)    when    he    docs  not  plainly   declare 
that  the  use  of  Uphillim  i.  obligatory.        The  foregoing    m 
to  -how  that  the  Gaonim  did  not  much  care  to  introduce  the  tepkil- 


—      64     — 

even  these  laws  remained  theoretical  merely 
and  were  never  put  into  practice,  as  they  by  no  means 
prescribed  them  for  the  common  people,  and  even  for 
their  own  use  they  made  many  special  laws  ami  regu- 
lations 

The  tephillim  arc  mentioned  for  the  first  time  by 
the  Gaonim  in  the  polemical  answers  {Ieshvboth)  or 
R.  Jeliudi  Gaon.  Shibbole  Loketh,  Section  fnyan 
Tephillim  :  Halachoth  Pesuqoth  :  and  see  our  Phyl. 
R.1  p.  73.)  But  even  in  the  writings  of  the  Gaonim 
tlic\  are  ver\  seldom  mentioned.  In  the  course  of  one 
hundred  filty  years  from  the  days  of  R.  Jehudi  Gaon 
to  the  days  of  R.  Natranai  and  his  son  Hillai  they  are 
not  mentioned  at  all ;  and  then  they  are  not  mentioned 
for  ninety  rears  until  the  day-  ofR.  Sherira  ami  Hai 


tint    among  the    people,  as  we  have  several    times  remarked  in  our 
Ihvl.  Kit. 

Ami  upon  Rab's  words,  "A  bodily  cursed  few  i>  a  man 
who  does  nol  war  tephillim"  (x^n  XDSpip  'Z'lZ  -X--J-  ye*IE 
,,L,~r,  "."_'  "  ■:  Only  i-  meant  who 

wilfully  rlisol»eys  and  laughs  at  them.      R.  Jacob  Tarn    in  his  own 
name  explained  it  in  the    same  sense   and    added  that  it  is  only   in 
neglectfully  with  the  tilled.      I:  is  curious  why  Tain 
v.    this  explanation  in  the  name  of  the  l 


Gaonim.  In  our  Phyl.  Hit.  we  have  endeaivored  to 
prove  that  the  mention  of  these  laws  from  time  to  time 
was  due  every  time  to  the  renewal  of  tlie  strife  between 
the  Ralianim  and  the  Keraiin. 

Beginning  from  R.  HaiGaon  and  coming  down  to 
the  days  of  the  commentators  of  the  Talmud  we  find 
no  further  mention  of  the  tephillim  cither  in  theory 
or  in  practice.  R.  Alfasi  in  his  composition  of  the 
Halachoth,  when  the  strife  with  the  Keraiin  was  again 
renewed  gives  pi  ice  indeed  to  the  beginning  of  the 
Beraitha,  ••What  is  their  order  ? "  (pTD  nvr),  and,  as 
we  have  stated  in  the  foregoing  chapter,  omitted  the 
words  "and  the  reader  shall  read  them  in  their  order." 
But  about  the  subject  lie  says  very  little.  In  the  same 
way  the  author  of  the  Halachoth  Gedholoth  treats  that 
Beraitha. 

Maimonides  in  his  treatise  upon  the  Halachoth 
comments  largely  upon  this  Halachoth  winch  were  and 
were  not  put  in  practice.  Rabad  m  his  refutations  of 
Maiinonid'  s  in  this  place  leaves  his  usual  custom  and 
begins  as  follows:  "R.  Hai  Gaon  did  not  say  so". 
Tosphath  (Menahoth  34)  commenting  upon  Rashi  says 
iu  the  inline  of  R.  Hai  Gaon  exactly  the  contrary  to 
what  Rabad  claimed  R.  Hai    Gaon    to   have  sa  d  and 

Amulets.   Charms,   Talismans.  —  Rodkin  ii 


—     GG     — 

maintained  thai  according  to  K.  Hai  Gaon  the  two 
texts  Deut.  xi.  14-20  anil  Ex.  xiii.  11-16  (which  begin 
wiiu  the  words  rrm  and  are  therefore  railed  nvin, 
(Havaioth)  must  be  near  each  other  expressed  by  the 
words  "The  Bavaioth  together "  (Tinfc  nnn).  It  is 
stated  by  "Smag"  thai  11.  Sherira,  the  father  oi'R. 
Bai  (■"ii.  whs  of  the  same  opinion  in  regard  to  the 
two  Bavaioth.  R.  Joseph  Karo  in  liis  Keseph  Mishna 
cites  a  letter  written  by  Maimonides  (51),  in  which  he 
claims  that  R.  Hat  Gaon  said  something  inconsistent 
rtitli   what   both  Rabad  and    Tosphath  claim,  but  not 


•  our  I'hyl.  Kit.  in  which  we  have  proven  that 
this  letter  was  not  written  by  Maimonides,  but  Only  as- 
cribed  to  him  rpT'?1  and  K.  [oseph  Karo  himself  is  doubt- 
ful as  to  the  authenticity  of  the  letter.  In  the  same  place 
we  have  remarked  upon  the  authors  of  the  Tosphath 
and  all  othora  who  participated  in  this  dispute  that  they 
never  but    only    say    --so    and   so    says    this    or 

that".  There  we  maintain  that  K.  Alfasi  wrote  his  work 
only  on  account  of  the  Keraim  who  began  to  grow  in 
his   daj  and    we    now   add    to  that    if  it    were  not 

for  the  Keraim,  even  that  little  about  the  tephilim  would 
not  have  beem  mentioned  by  Alfasi,  since  the  people  in 
his    days    did    not    wear   them. 


—     67     - 

one  of  them  could  say  positively.  "These  are  the  tephilim 
worn  by  R.  Hai  Gaon,"  as  Hillel  said,  "These  are  the 
tephillim  worn  by  my  mother's  father".  R.  Menahem 
Azarie  from  Panu  in  his  'Answers."  par.  H)T.  assumed 
thatR.  Hai,  the  most  promineni  of  the  Gaonim,  used 
to  wear  four  different  styles  of  tephillim,  and  therefore 
lie  thinks  all  the  above  styles,  claimed  to  have  been 
found  in  R.  Hai  Gaon's  tephillim,  do  not  contradict 
one  another,  but  that  each  one  claiming  a  different 
sO'le  saw  a  different  one  ofR.  Hai's  tephillim. 

The  same  author  further  states  that  he  -aw  an  an- 
cient set  of  tephillim  in  which  the  order  of  the  texts 
was  at  the  right  of  the  wearer,  but  this  was  only  a 
conjecture,  and  he  could  not  say  positively  whether,  R. 
Hai  Gaon  really  wmv  four  styles  or  that  the  ancienl 

sel    was  that  of  11.  Hai. 

We  thus  see  that  after  the  time  of  the  Gaonim  that 
tephillim  had  fallen  into  disuse  and  that  tosuch  an  ex- 
tent that  not  one  pair  could  be  found  that  might  serve 
as  an  example  of  the  kind  worn  in  ancienl  times.  Ac- 
cordingly as  no  reason  could  be  given  why  the  order 
,,,-  the  texts  should  beone  way  or  another,  or  which 
opinion  is  to  be  preferred,  and  as  it  all  depended  upon 
the  explanation  of  the  Beraitha,  pnoiya,  the>  could 
find  no  higher  authority  than  R    Hai  Gaon;   and  so 


—     08     — 

they  tried  to  find  out  the  style  he  used  to  wear. 

As  we  have  proven  in  our  Phyl.  Bit.,  neither 
Rashi  Dor  Tosphath  wore  tephillim,  as  is  admitted  by 
the  authorities  of  Tosphath  themselves. 

One  prominent  person,  R.  Jacob  of  Kurbil  by 
oame,  whom  the  author  of  Tosphath  called  the  "Holy 
Man."  claimed  to  have  communicated  with  Heaven 
(onDBTi  p  nuiem  rnb«B>)  regarding  the  order  of  the 
texts  in  the  compartments  and  the  obligation  of  wear- 
ing them  :  but  the  response  to  his  communication  was 
so  obscure  52)tha1  nothing  could  he  made  of  it  to  put 
in  practice. 


52)  Sec    our   Phyl.      Kit.,     the    chapter    entitled    "Ques- 

form  Heaven"  :    where   we   cite    that  to 

the    first    question   the   answer  was   received    that    C.<k1    Him. 

lys     that    the    texts     Deut.     xi.     14-20    and    Ex.     xiii. 

11  — 10   must    be   placed    in   the    middle:    and   that  His   suite 

SvDS  '    "f    the    .'pinion   that    the    texts    named    must  be 

in    th»ir   regu'ar    Biblical   order.      Now    the   order   of    texts 

just    the    contrary  :     and    thus    contrary 

Will   ol    Heaven!      And    to  the   second   question   he 

•   I  in  answer  to  certain    Biblical   quotations    which  are 

inexplicable.     It    was    only   in    regard   t>»    the   ceremony   of 


69 

And  t inis  the  tephillim  wore  forgotten  in  the  last 
centuries  of  the  "  Fifth  Thousand  "  ol  the  Jewish  Cal 
ender  (900-1200  A.  R.)  till  the  appearance  of  R. 
Moshe  mi  Coney,  the  author  of  "Smag  ",  who  devoted 
himself  to  reviving  their  use.  moved  by  the  motive 
which  we  shall  now  explain. 

Christianity,  which  in  its  early  age  as  we  have 
seen  prompted  many  reforms  in  the  tephillim,  in  the 
middle  age  when  it  was  rapidly  spreading  all  over 
Europe  also  did  a  great  deal  toward  the  spread  and 
adoption  of  tephillim  in  the  days  of  R.  Moses  of  Coucj 
This  Frenchman  who  was  with  his  whole  heart  and 
soul  devoted  to  the  Jewish  fail h.  saw  his  eo  religionists 
in  Spain  and  Portugal  begin  to  assimilate  more  and 
more  with  the  governing  nations  in  those  countries, 


7i/fc**// that  he  got   a  distinct  answer:    "Let    them    do   what 

they  are  in  the  habit  of  doing,  because  it  is  better  to  do 
it  involuntarily  that,  wilfully  yn—  301D  1}KWf?  tfArun) 
pT2  vn<  ta  PJW).  ^  the  -an,-  place  we  have  stated 
that  the  third  part  of  the  seventy  questions  concerned  the 
Tephillim  and  Tsitsith.  From  all  this  we  can  see  how 
much  the  scholars  of  that  time  troubled  themselves  about 
the    Tephillim.     (See  127-7321- 


—     70     — 

adopting  their  customs  and  usages.  The  .Jew-  then 
resembled  Christiana  externallj  as  there  remained 
nothing  ol  their  peculiar  customs  but  circumcision  . 
the  custom  of  wearing  Tephil/im,  Tsitsith,  eight 
strings  al  each  end  of  a  square  robe,  and  Mezuzoth, 
the  Biblical  text  Shema  Deut  vi.  4)  on  the  door,  were 
not  then  observed  by  the  Jews.  Christians  were  dis- 
tinguished  b  wearing  the  cross  with  which  the  Jews, 
not  considering  it  as  idol-worship  (D^x  miay),  used 
somewhat  to  deal  and  ornament  and  give  to  their  Jewish 
ami  Christian  friends,  they  themselves  being  distingu- 
ished by  no  external  mark.  Upon  seeing  this  a  fear 
into  the  heart  of  Moses  of  Coucy  i  hat  in  the 
course  of  time  the  Jews  would  become  wholly  assimi- 
lated with  the  Christians  ;  and  to  prevent  this  he  dev- 
ised the  following,  he  being  the  first  and  the  last  to 
explain  it  thus  :"  By  two  witnesses  shall  a  fact  be  est- 
ablished pan  mp1*  any  ':•:•  'z— y  and  therefore  every 
Jew  must  have  these  wittnesscs  to  show  that  be  is  a 
Jew.  {Smog  par.  3  noy).  Bui  there  arc  only  three 
things  which  can  witness  to  the  person  obeying  them 
that  he  is  a  true  Jew  ;  namely,  the  Sabbath,  Tephillim 
and  Circumcision  The  Bible  in  speaking  of  these 
thiee  use.-  the  expression  'and  they  shall  be  o  sign,  a 


—     71      — 

witness,  to  you'.  Therefore  on  the  Sabbath-day  there 
is  no  nee. I  of  wearing  I'tphillim,  as  there  are  two  wit- 
nesses withoul  thorn  (Sabbath  and  circumcision) s  but 
on  week  days  everj  Je^  must  wear  tephillim^  that  they 
together  with  circumcision  should  lie  two  witnesses  ". 
But  knowing  that,  no  one  would  heed  him  and  wear 
tephillim  the  whole  day,  R.  Moses  of  Coney  satisfied 
himself  with  making  them  obligatory  only  during  the 
morning  hour  of  prayer  when  they  should  remind  the 
wearer  that  he  is  a  .lew  and  that  he  has  mam  duties 
to  perform.  In  this  way  R.  Moses  of  Coney  hoped  to 
prevent  his  fellow-religionists  from  assimilation. 

His  lon.ir  dissertation  states  that  rather  the  im- 
pious(53)  than  the  pious  should  wear  tephillim.  which 
id  copied  from  Smag,  and  thai  he  ordered  a  red  string 
to  be  worn  instead  of  tephillim  in  ease  the  government 


531  "God  would  rather  have  the  cursed  than  the  pious 
to  wear  tephillim  :  and  the  tephillim  were  principally  com- 
mended  for  the  cui  minder  to  them" 

own  wrods).     See    Phyl.    Kit.    pp.    84,  85,    and   also  what  K. 
[oseph  of    Cologne    said,    p.    7s- 


should  prohibit  the  latter  (54);  and  he  wrote  also  :  "In 
the  year  1995  A  M  there  was  an  occurrence  from 
heaven  (OT3C — :~:ri  as  a  proof,  and  in  the  next 
year,  499G,  I  went  to  Spain  to  preach  to  them,  and 


to    the    book    l-'.U-h    Hamitsvolh    men- 
tioned   above    (p. 1.      In     our     l'hyl.     Kit.    p.     135    we 

cite  his  own  words,  and' there  he  says  that  already  in 
Portugal  it  was  forbidden  to  wear  tephillim,  but  he  does 
not  give  exactly  the  time.  In  the  histories  of  the  lews  there 
ig  no  trace  of  this.  And  yet  this  is  not  remarkable,  as  so 
many  things  which  happened  are  omitted  from  Jewish  his- 
as  is  justly  -aid  by  R.  Gamaliel,  that  if  we  were 
to  attempt  to  --numerate  all  the  sufferings  of  the  Jews  we 
e  able  to  do  it.  even  if  we  devoted  to  it  all 
our   !;•  s   oi    Coucy     did    not    note    di- 

rectly  all  the  sufferings  of    hir  own  time,    but    called  them 
"Occurences    from    heaven",   "earthquakes",    etc.    As    there 
IS    no    mention    in    history   of  any    earthquake    on    any    astro- 
nomical   occurred  e      D*33Drl  rlUVTrl)    >'i    the    yars   4995—6 
A.    M.  —  although  in  4990  there  was  a  great  flood  at  Viriza 
in    earthquake    in    Bohemia    —    he    probablv   meant  by 
-    from    heaven"    the    edicts    ol    Pope   (iregorv 
ivernmenl    so  designated  them      01 
these   sufferings    of  the    people    K.    Moses    oi    Coucy    I 

to    make    them    adopt    the   Mitsvoth    mentioned. 


—     73     — 

God  gave  me  power  by  the  dreams  of  the  Jews  and  the 
dreams  of  the  Christians  (55)  and  visions  of  the  stars  ; 
and  the  eart h  quaked  ana  there  was  a  great  uproar 
and  they  repented  of  their  sins,  and  thousand*  and 
tens  of  thousands  adopted  the  Tephillim,  the  il/ezuzah, 
and  the  2'sitsilh".     From  all  this  we  mav  judge  that 


55)  The  meaning  of  the  words  -'the  dreams  of  tin- 
Jews  and  the  dreams  of  the  Christians''  seems  to  be 
very  peculiar  and  so  do  s  the  explanation  of  R.  bh.  Lurie 
(Amude  Shelome,  Vol.  II.  p.  2),  which  is  as  follows.  --The 
dreams    of    the  Christians".  "There    were     not    found 

such  good  dream-readers  as  among  the  Christians"  is  not 
intelligible  at  all,  although  by  the  author  claimed  to  be  "easily 
understood"  (p3fli>  ?pl)-  —  As  "  seems  to  us  R.  Moses  of 
Coucy  spared  nothing  to  make  his  co-religionists  adopt  the 
tephillim.  They  easily  adopted  the  mezuza  and  tsitsith,  the  for. 
mer  being  only  in  the  house  and  the  hitter  covered  with  their 
garments.  But  the  tephillim  they  did  not  want  to  adopt,  for 
they  were  to  be  worn  on  a  conspicuous  place  (the  forehead). 
Therefore  he  had  to  employ  different  me  ms,  lectures  and 
dreams  :  and  not  having  much  success  he  tried  to  gain 
them  by  the  dreams  of  the  Christians,  in  whom  in  such 
cases  the  Jews  have  great  confidence,  because  "the  Jews 
believe  a  Gentile  speaking  unintentionally  more  than  a  hun- 
dred witnesses"  (any  pikdb  r-x-:: ■■-  px:  xoNVtb  Pi'DO  •':  . 

Amulets,  Charms.   Talismans.  —  Rodkinson.  14 


—     74     — 

then,  in  the  days  of  Pope  Gregory,  when  the  adoption 
of  Christianity  by  the  Jews  increased  and  persecutions 
began,  II.  Moses  ofConcy  took  advantage  of  this  to 
compel  them  to  adopt  the  Tephillim,  the  Mezuzoth. 
and  the  Tsitsith  for  themselves  and  their  children,  and 
in  this  way  he  hoped  to  prevent  them  from  assimila- 
tion. 

The  devotion  and  laborofR.  Moses  of  Coucy  bore 
many  and  good  fruits,  although  not  all  the  Jews  then 
adopted  the  three  ceremonies,  tephillim,  mezuzah,  and 
tsitsith,  as  la-  himself  says  it  was  onlj  thousands,  (56) 
and  even  this  was  an  exaggeration,   as  can  be  seen 


56)  It  is  curious  that  the  author  of  Or  Zrrua,  who  lived 
rtt  the  same  time  or  a  few  yarrs  after  R.  Moses  of  Coucy, 
contrary  to  the  latter,  allowed  only  the  most  prominent 
to  wear  tephillim  and  not  the  cursed  ones.  Tr  the  days  of 
K.  Asher  (Rosh)  it  seems  that  the  custom  was  somewhat 
widely  adopted,  as  may  be  judged  from  his  words 
"and  why  a  h'v  of  the  people  pay  no  attention  to  it  etc. 
This  would  seem  to  indicate  that  the  most  of  the  ; 
wore  them.  Bui  we  cannot  consider  this  absolute 
ii<>r  can  we  tell  exactly  how  many  are  to  be  understood 
bv   the   word    "few",    nor  of    what   class  they   were. 


from  the  fact  that  two  hundred  years  afterwards,  in 
the  days  ol  R.  Joseph  of  Cologne,  tephiUim  were  but 
very  slightly  worn;  and  H.  Joseph  says  plainly:  "  The 
'command'  (ntry)  of  tepkillim  is  doubtful,  and  God's 
name  pronounced  over  them  may  be  considersd  as  pro- 
nounced in  vain"  (n^B3^  rO"Q)"  from  which  it  may  be 
concluded  that  R.  Joseph  himself  did  not  wear  them; 
and  in  the  same  place,  in  answer  to  one  who  ques- 
tioned him  on  this  subject .  lie  says  that  lie  agrees 
with  the  questioner  (/'.  e.  that  tephiUim  need  not 
invariably  be    worn)  (57).       The   author  of  Shibbole 


probably  did  not  speak  of  the  common  people.  R.  Asher's 
son.  R.  Jacob,  the  author  of  the  "Turim",  did  a  great 
.h-al  toward  spreading  the  tephiUim,  and  made  them  obli- 
gatory upon  everyone  :  after  him"  in  the  days  of  R.  Jo- 
seph Karo  it  appears  to  have  been  very  extensively  adopted 
by  the  common  pec, pie.  who  made  them  according  to 
Rashi's  style,  placing  the  texts  from  the  right  of  the  reader. 
But  he  ordered  that  the  style  ol  R.  Tarn  be  also  worn 
at  the  same  time,  that  there  be  not  the  slightest  doubt 
that  God's  name    were  not  pronounced  in    vain     H3^3  B^KTl 

57)  The  criginal  words  of  the  questioner  an-  not  quoted 
in   the   text   (Clause    175),    ,,,lt    ''    ^''''"s   tha1    two  questions 


_     76     — 

■h  says  that  they  are  to  be  worn  onlj  on  certain 
days,  from  which  we  maj  iclu  le  that  they  were  nol 

ised  by  i  he  i pie  c  ►nimonlj .     R.   Jacob   Weil, 

who  lived  much  later  than  the  foregoing,  expressed 
his  dissati.-faction  with  the  3'ouu.s  folks,  married  or 
unmarried,  who  were  in  the  habit  of  wearing  tephillim. 
(58).    From  i  see  thai  there  were 

numerous  people  who  did  nol  wear  tephillim  until  the 
davs  of  Joseph  Karo.  But  .-till  we  can  truly  say  that, 
had  it  ii"i  been  for  R.  Moses  ot'Coucy,  there  would  be 
no  trace  of  the  custom  in  our  days:  as  it  was  the  pains 
taken  by  thai  man  ami  the  various  calamities  which 
befell  the  Jews  in  the  two  centuries  which  followed  him 
caused  them  lii tie  by  little  to  adopi  the  tephillim  where 
the\  lived,  anil  in  com-.-,'  ol  time  the  number  of  those 


were    asked    at    the    same  time  :    ai    If    a  man   ought    lo   die 

commands     tv: 
and    bj    It    it    is    obligatory    to    wear    tephillim.      This    would 
to    show     that     the    questions     wei  the 

mind    o  I'd  :   ''It 

U    : 

R.it.    in    many    places. 


who  wore  them  increased  to  such  an  extent  that  It. 
Joseph  Karo  could  justly  say,  -ami  the  people  (D^y 
3ru»)  wear  the  stylo  of  Etashi  ". 

But  even  the  tephillim  of  R.  Moses  of  Coney  un- 
derwent a  certain  change,  although  not  an  entire 
change;  and  they  differed  inform  from  the  tephillim 
worn  in  aneie.it  times,  as  there  was  added  on  the  out- 
side one  more  "Shin"  which  we  do  not  Snd  mentioned 
elsewhere. (59)    The  motive  whereby  they  were  led  to 


umne. 


59)  The    "Two   Shins"  (D^BTl  TIC)  are  indeed  ment 
in    Tu.ph.ul>    (Menahoih35)   m    the    name   of    .S7™,/„   AW 
in    lhe    following    words:     -And    he    puts    a  three-headed    Shu, 
rp)   on    the    right    side   and    a  four-headed    Shin    (By)   on    the 
,,tt.    and    it    does  not  matter  if   he  change  them",    from    which 
we    may    judge    that    it    was    new     to    the    writer.     Who 
Shemask*    Rabba     was     we    cannot    find     out,       save     what    R. 
Menahem   of   Panu    stated,     that    he  SAtm.sk*  Rabba     said     his 
words  in    the     name  of    the     Gaonim.        R.    Moses    ol 
did    „„,    mention    the    Shemmhc  Rabba   at    all,    from     which    we 
may    conclude  either   that    it    was  not   in  existence  in  his   day.. 
orthatitWasnotknownatleasttohim.     The  coltoettoi 
phath  was  made,  as  we  have  proven  in  our  Phyl.  Rit.,  in  the 
course  of  49*7     5°6o  A.  M.,    because    R.  M 
mentioned  therein.       See  Phyl.  Rit..  p.  141.      And   tl 


7s 

thia  was  -nii|'l\  because  they  probably  found  one  sel  of 
tf.phiUim  with  a  three-headed  Shin  (sr)  and  one  with  a 
!<>ur  headed  Shin  ivj-i.  the  three  headed  Shin  adopted 
by  the  Jewish  Christians  as  an  emblem  ol  the  Trinity, 
and  the  tour-headed  one  adopted  by  the  Jews  in  op- 
position to  the  Jewish  Christians,  and  indicating  that 
God  is  oue  in  all  the  tour  quarters  of  the  world.  As 
thej  did  not  know  the  explanations  and  which  one  to 
prefer,  the}  adopted  both  of  them,  following  the  ex- 
ample of  the  Talmud  in  such  cases.  So  after  under- 
going  numerous   changes  we    have   the   ttphiilim   in 


if  indeed  the  Slumushe  Rabba  is  quoted  in  Tosphath,  which 
was  not  for  prai  tical  application,  but  only  as  an   explanation 

.  .•■  :,.:h.  we  i  annot   i  urn  lude   therefrom  that  the  Gaonim 

had  two  Shins  on  the  tcphilim  which  they  wore.        Bui  it  may 

ilready  thinking  about  the  Shins 

and  could    not   decide   what   to    do,   as    they  probably    found 

\illim  with  both   the  5?  and   the  vwM.  the  style 

[ewish  Christians  and  the  lews,  ami  soused  both  to- 
gether. R.  Moses  of  Coucy  applied  this  to  practice  and  made 
;..  ith  Shin-  •  ibligal 


70 

their  present  form,  and   no  one  has  anything  against 
them.  (60) 

With  this  we  conclude  a  short  history  of  the  teph 
illim,  and  we  find  n  only  necessary  to  remark  that  ai 
present  the  custom  of  wearing  tephillim  is  growing 
less  and  less,  not  only  among  the  reformed  .lows  but 
even  also  among  the  Orthodox  .lows;  as  many  of  them 
satisfy  themselves  with  performing  this  ceremony  only 
once  in  their  life,  i.  e.  when  a  boy  reaches  the  age  of 
thirteen  years,  at  which  age  he  is  considered  to  be 
"  ripe"  for  performing  all  religious  ceremonies.  They 
take  him  to  the  synagogue  and  put  the  tephillim  upon 
him,  and  the  boy  never  repeats  theccremony.  In  this 
the  Orthodox  Jews  probably  agree  with  R.  Alfasi,  who 


'6cm  Rabbi  Chaim  Oppenheimof  Turin  has  indeed  called  atten 
tion  to  the  Fact  that  the  Grand  Rabbi  Mordecai  Benet  created 
a  great  uproar  by  claiming  that  the  Tephillim  worn  at  the  pre- 
sent  day  are  invalid  (  71D2  I.  The  ('.rand  Rabbi  Reformed  i 
Aaron  Hariner  sent  us  an  answer  on  this  point,  but  we 
never  happened  to  see  anything  written  on  this  subje* 
the  Rabbi  in  q  lestion,  and  we  have  sought  information  from 
many  writers  bin  so  far  in  vain. 


_    80    — 

says  that  if  any  ime  has  worn  tephiUim  once  in  his  life 
!„.  cannol    be  callc«J    ••  Po«he  Csrael  b'gufho",   yens) 

(lDwa^siK i  Jew  cursed  in  his  body".  And  pos- 
sibly they  used  to  'I"  so  in  the  days  of  R.  Alfasi.  As 
wt,  QaVe  ;i  greal  rule  from  Et.  Hillel  ha-Zapen,  who 
once  said:  '*You  ••an  rely  upon  the  Jews  ;  it' they  are 
not  themselves  prophets,  t!  eyare  the  sons  of  prophets." 

\]l{\  go  i hey  probably  know  what  they  are  doing. 


—     81     — 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

A   Correspondence    with   Learned   Men  of    the   Present 
Time  regarding  the  Origin  of  the  Term  Qameat  (yep).        Our 

own  Opinion  on  this  Subject. 

After  we  have,  with  God's  help,  discovered  the 
origin  of  the  terms  totaphoth  and  tephillim,  we  con- 
sider it  our  duty  to  say  a  little  about  the  word  l"-P 
(Qamcd),  which  occurs  often  in  the  Mi.-hua.  And  al- 
though we  have  not.  succeeded  in  establishing  its  ety- 
mology with  indisputable  proofs,  as  we  have  done  in  tin- 
case  of  the  other  two  words,  and  although  our  hypoth- 
esis is  not  absolutely  certain,  we  shall  nevertheless 
cite  the  opinions  ot  many  scholars  with  whom  wo  have 
been  in  correspondence  in  regard  to  this  subject,  and 
in  addition  we  shall  give  our  own  opinion,  leaving  it  to 
the  reader  to  choose. 

Dr.    Dushak,    the  Rabbi    ot  Cracow,     expressed 
his   opinion  as    follows:   "The  origin  of  this   word  is 
Amulets,  Charms,  Talismans. — Rodkinson.  ic 


-     82     — 

from  the  German  "amulet",  and  it  is  derived  accord- 
ing tn  the  opinion  of  a  few  from  the  Latin  verb 
amoliri,  which  means  to  remove  all  kind.-  of  sufferings 
and  mischiefs;  but  I  cannol  approve  this  opinion,  and 
in  my  judgment  the  mosl  correcl  opinion  is  that  of 
Hammer  that  amulel  is  Arabic  and  means  an  article 
\v.»ni  by  the  Arabs  around  the  aeck  for  the  purpose  of 
keeping  them  from  harm,  etc.  Thus  we  understand 
thai  the  word  (VQP)  is  derived  from  (yop  ,)"2p),  and 
this  means  the  dangling  of  anything  around  any  part 
of  the  body.  The  change  oi'(V)  to  (y)  is  not  new." 
These  are  Dr.  Dushalc's  original  words  in  our  Ebhen 
Sappir,  p.  36,  where  the  reader  may  see  our  remarks 
upon  them. 

Mr.  Recheles  opposed  Dr.  Du?hak  (Ibid.  p.  46) 
and  maintained  that  ■•This  word  (VDp)  originates  from 
the  Latin  and  is  c  imposed  ofthe  words  cum  me  (with 

me),  | ause  of  its  being  always  attached  to  the  body, 

never  removed  even  for  a  moment,  that  mischief  may 
be  kept  from  the  wearer. 

Dr.  Plaut,  the  Rabbi  of  Frankfort  on  the  Main, 
after  examining  the  above-mentioned  opinions  of  Dr. 
Dushak  and  Mr.  Recheles,  wrote  us  the  following: 
•  •The    word  (IPDp)  is  derived    from    the    low    Latin 


—     83     — 

cammaeus,  which  means  a  cameo,  or  an  embossed 
figure  on  a  precious  stone,  worn  by  the  ancient  nat- 
ions on  their  breast  and  arms  as  a  talisman."  Ami 
in  his  opinion  the  Talmudists  borrowed  this  name  for 
any  article  worn  as  a  talisman  (r6uD).  See  our  jour- 
nal Ha-Kol,  No.  300. 

Finding  no  satisfaction  in  the   above- mentioned 

explanations,  for  reasons  which  we  shall  hereinafter 
state,  we  wrote  (Nov.  11,  1891)  to  the  well-known 
author  of  the  Aruch  Hasholem,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Kohut, 
asking  his  opinion  about  the  word  qamea,  and 
received    in    reply    the    following  : 

New  York,   Nov.   12,  1891. 

Rev.   Dr.  M.  L.  Rodkinson  : 

Your  esteemed  letter  has  just  been  received 
and  I  hasten  to  answer  you.  as  "in  the  moment 
when    you    see    a  scholar    you   shall  bless    him"  «pW) 

(nana  rrr6. 

You  requesl  rnj  opinion  in  regard  to  the  word 
JPDp.  I  have  written  much  about  it  in  my  work, 
Aruch  ffasholem,  Vol.  VII.  p.  123,  ami  the  following 


_    84    — 

is  what  the  author  of  the  "Aruch",  Dr.  Nathan, 
Baj  -    about  it.  *  * 

(Here  Dr.  E£ohut  cites  the  words  of  Aruch  and 
Musphio  with   a  list    of  all  the  places  where  the  word 

ITDp in--  in  the  Talmud  and  Midrashim  and  add.-  his 

own  opioioD  that  it  is  derived  from  a  Greek  word 
which  means  a  "knot''  and  refers  to  many  passages 

to  prove    it,  which   are  uriD ssary  to   quote   here, 

as  the  Amch  Hasholem  can  be  found  in  any  lib- 
rary.    Be  then   proceeds   as    follows :) 

"Concerning  the  word  carnmams  from  which 
the  word  jrop  is  supposed  to  be  derived,  r  beg  to 
-:i\  that  it  i-  not  to  be  found  in  the  dictionaries 
of  the  Latin  classic  literature,  and  it  appeared  for 
the  tir-t  time  in  1U4  A.  D.  See  Du  Presne, 
irium,    cammaeus. 

And   with  this  T  am,   with   regards, 

Yours   very    truly. 

B  \Noit  Jehuda    Dr.  Cohut). 

Now  Dr.  Kohut  has  overthrown  Or.  Plaut's 
opinion  by  proving  that  the  word  cammaeuft  appeared 


—     85 

for  the  first    time   in   the   15th   centurv,     while  the 
word   rap    ia    found    in    the    Mishna,    which    was 
composed  in  the  3d   century  A.   D.     But   fur    a  like 
reason    we    cannot    approve    Dr.    Kohut's    opinion. 
For   the   Mishna.    aa    is    well    known,    is    written    in 
plain    Hebrew,    and    only    eertain    expressions   which 
the  Hebrew    language    lacks    were    borrowed    from 
the  languages  then  current ;  and   now,   if  it  be  really 
aa    Dr.    Klohut  thinks     that  the   word  yop    means 
iL-p   (a  knot),    then   it   is   curious  why   the   Mishna 
did    not  use  the   word   \^",%?   (a  knotted   ornament), 
which  is  used  in  Isa.  lii.  20,    of  an  ornament   worn  by 
women,  rather  than  choose   a  Greek  word  to  express 
this  meaning.     And  to  tell  the  truth,    there    ia  little 
difference  between   the  opinion   of  Dr.    Dushak  and 
Dr.    Kohut,    the    former    explaining    it    as    attached 
and   the   latter  as  tied  to  the  body  (a).     Dr.    Dus'iak 


a)  The  true  meaning  of  the  word  VJ'p  is  a  knot,  *>{{>  ~lL"p) 
hB>p  H'^C  N^'P  "a  knot  which  lasts  forever  is  called  a  h*ot" 
i.  e.  a  complication  of  threads  which  cannot  1m-  untied,  and  the 
verb  is  derived  from  this  noun.  The  intention  of  the  Bible  in 
saying  msS  Dmffpi  >*  that  they  should  be  bound  and  knotted 
mentally  forever. 


—    86    — 

;it  Iea8l  derived  it  from  a  Hebrew  word,  ,(*op. 
Therefore  in  a  second  letter  to  Dr.  EZohut  we  ex- 
i  our  opinion  thai  the  word  jrtsp  may  be 
derived  from  KriD'p  NyD'p  ("a  little",  or  "a  small 
portion")  found  in  the  Talmud;  because  a  qamea 
jrop  contains  fragments  of  the  names  of  angels, 
gods,  etc.,  and  in  reply  to  this  the  Rev.  Dr.  Kohnt 
wrote   the  following,    bearing  date,   Nov.  17,  1891: 

"In   reference   to  yi  iir   second    letter   1    beg  to 
or  ler  : 

••1)  Himalet,  Hamalet,  which  are  derived  from 
the  Latin  amuletum  and  the  German  \muh-t.  have 
nothing  in  c  i  nmon  [:|  with  the  word  JPDp,  which  is 
derived  from  the  Greek  [?]  as  I  have  proved  [!] 
in  Aniclt  HasJiolem,  Vol.   vii.    fol.  122,  pp.  1  and  2 

■  -2i  l:i  the  same  work,  fol.  123  b,  I  tried  to 
explain  the  word  nx*rp,  Nyo'p,  after  giving  a  list 
of  all  places  where  this  word  occurs  in  the  Talmud, 
and  in  ray  opinion  this  word  is  derived  from  the 
Persian  kam,  kami  "tn^  ,zn^  and  means  "a  portion, 
a  little",  and  I  quote  the  opinion  of  Tishbi  who  tried 
to  explain  it  thus  a  ','":?  contains  small  porti- 

ons nnd  fragments  and  abbreviations  of  different  wri- 
tings, and  therefore  il  is  called  a  JPDp.  Bui  this  opinion 


87 

is  too  far-fetched  (prim).  The  work  M'Kor  Chaim 
by  R.  Joseph  Karo  is  not  to  be  found  in  my  lib- 
rary, and  I  have  never  see  the  work  ,,Caphtor  vc 
Pherach,"  by  Luzatto,  but  only  a  work  with  the  same 
name  by  Edelman.  I  have  Eurbh  by  Uirsch,  but 
in  that  tephillim  is  supposed  to  be  derived  from 
^snn  '-to  pray",  see  ibid,  p.  231,  —  but  you  would 
not   there   find    what   you   desire". 

Now  since  Dr.  Kohut  has  declared  that  Tishbi 
preceded  us  with  the  opinion  that  the  word  STOP 
is  derived  from  KXHD-p  ,-xvp  (kam,  kami).  which 
means  in  Persian,  ''a  little",  we  approve  the  opinion 
of  Tishbi  and  do  not  find  it  far-fetched  ipnni) 
as  Dr.  Kohut  finds  it  ;  and  that  lor  the  following 
reasons  : 

R.  Nathan,  the  author  of  the  Antch.  was 
very  careful  in  explaining  the  word  q&mea  as 
meaning   i"'P    "a  knot",   citing  only   the  place  Becho- 

rath  30,    --It    happened   to   a  woman ami -he 

was  folding  (rwp)  him  tephillim  ;  afterwards  when 
she  was  married  to  an  ignorant  man  (pxri  DV) 
.she  used  to  tic  him  qoshre  mochson  ;  (|D310  '"cp) 
from  which  we  may  conclude  that  the  word  nyoip 
is    something    like   tying,    or   1L"P  to   "knot".     The 


ouihor  of  the  Musphio  (appendix  to  the  Aruch) 
was  also  carefal  in  explaining  the  word  as  the 
Bamc  as  ~'"?  and  -imply  adds:  "It  is  a  kind  of 
tying  and  there  are  some  medicaments  which  are 
tied  to  the  neck",  etc.  But  Dr.  Kohut,  wishing 
to  do  something  surprising  n313  tfOXQ)  (using  his 
own  words)  and  exhibil  his  knowledge  of  other 
languages,  found  the  word  Hima,  and  in  the  .Mid- 
rash  Bereshith  Rabba  be  found  a  word  him  us  which 
he  corrected  to  human  and  claimed  it  as  the  same 
as  Bima,  and  because  the  latter  word  means  a  -'knot" 
he  explaind  the  word  ysp  to  mean  iwp  —  See 
Aruch  //">//"/'  ///.    p.   127. 

Saving  made  one  mistake  in  giving  the  above 
explanation,  he  must  needs  make  another  one,  and 
bo  he  expressed  the  following  baseless  opinion  : 
••It  .-frin- to  me  that  JPDp  must  have  come  in  (sic I) 
from  the  margin  [see  remark  below]  referring  to 
himum"(b).     But    his   explanation    and   opinion   are 


b)  The  grand  Rabbi  of    i  <tion    Atiavath  Chesed 

(Dr.  Kohut)  :-  an  excellent  preacher  and  a  good  teacher,  but 
his  knowledge  in  the  oriental  tongues  and  especially  in  the 
Hebrev  e  in  thia  as  well  as  in  ma- 


ny  other  places  in  Aruch  HashoUm  his  Hebrew  is  very  obscure 

and  needs    explanation,    he  not  being  used    to    it.      In    nearly 
every  generation  the  Hebrew  language  has   undergone   some 
changes.     There  is  a  difference  between  Biblical  Hebrew  and 
the    dialect    of    the    Mis/ma,    as  well  as  between  the  early  and 
middle  Amoraim,  and  there  is  a  great  difference  between  them 
all  and  the  dialect  of  the  Rabanim    Seborai.     Likewise    is    the 
language  of  the  Gaonim  different  from  them  all.      In    the    Tal- 
mud are  articles  in    all    these    dialects    just    mentioned. 
Weiss'  ■  •<  teschichte"  and  our  ( >/*»  L  iter  to  the  Rabanim,  where 
lt  i,   ,,roven  that  there  are  annexed  to  the  Talmud  many  artic- 
les  from  the  latter  Gaonim.)     An  expert  can    even    tell   from 
the  dialect  in  which  the  article  is  written  to    what  age    the  au- 
thor belonged,  as  we  have  proven  in  our  -Open  Letter"        To 
this  Dr.  Kohut  has  paid  no  attention,  and  as  soon    as    he  finds 
in  any  language  a  word  or  expression    resembling    that    found 
in  the  Talmud,  he  jump    both     cor,  lusion   that    the    Talmud 
borrowed  from  that  language,    regardless    of    the    date 
writing   and    whether  «ng     were     possible     and 

therefore    he    often    fails    to  conclude  aright.     And  ft. 
with  all  due  repeel  to  Dr.  Kohut  we  cannot   reccomen 
lars  to  accept  his  opinions    and    hypotheses    without  a  . 

examination.     Th.  R-  Sch"  '      '' 

the  journal    Hacarmel,    vol.    iv.    4^     45)   called  Dr-    Kohut's 
attention  to  the  fact  that,    owing  to   his    not    being    qualified 
tor  such  work  and  not  having  a  thorough   knowledge   ol   He. 
brew,    he    made   many    mistakes  in    very    important  i 
Amulet-.  Charm-.   Talismans.— Rodkins 


90     — 

not  easily  understood  (T2D  kVi  '"n;  tO),  as  wo  have 
already  stated,  for  if  the  meaning  of  JPOP  were 
ippi  then  the  Mishna  would  certainly  have  used 
the  word  ;'""*""  r1  which  is  Hebrew,  having  in  the 
Bible  the  same  meaning,  rather  than  a  Greek  word 
And  therefore  we  are  inclined  t<>  approve  the  opi- 
nion  of  Tishbi,    that  a  JTDP  contained   -mall    pieces 


R.    I  :  t    this,    although    he  saw 

only    one    part  of    the    first    volume    of    I'r.    Kohut's   work. 
But  we  who  have  had  the  honor  to  see  the  work    as  comp- 

ot   yet  fully   quali- 
ties and   the  Aruch  Hasholem  needs   many    important  improve 
F"r    instance,    net  und  tly    the  ver« 

K.    Nathan,    the    author    of    t'ne    Aruch,    he    concluded 
that    he     »  i-    a    traveling    merchant    with    shirts       (peddler, 
not    being   qualified    f"r   this   work,    he    omits    names 
ithors    whose  works  he    cites,    as    in    the    section    of    Dr. 
Frankel.     Not    being    perfecl    in    Hebrew,    he   uses    the  ex- 
-..    "and  1  'i  In"  preceded  me  with  this  explanation," 
although    l>r.   Kohut  never  before    wrote  on    the    poinl 

i  "Hachalutz  vol.    VII,     pp.  85—95  where  many   other 

We  hope    Dr.    Kohut    will    pardon    us    for  1  for,    as 

the   proverb  1    respect     Plato, 

l>ut   respect    the    truth    the    most." 


91    — 

of  parchmeni  with  names  of  angels,  etc.,  and  in 
proof  of  this  we  cite  the  following  place  in  the 
Mishit  a  (Tract  Shabbath),  "A  piece  of  skin  enough 
to  make  a  JPDp  and  parchment  enough  to  write 
thereon  a  small  text  of  tephillim".  From  this  we 
may  judire  that  the  word  JPDp  as  used  by  the  doc- 
tors of  the  Misluia  did  nol  signify  the  parchment 
and  what  was  written  upon  it.  hut  the  case  which 
contained  the  parchment  and  writings;  and  not 
as  in  the  later  centuries  when  they  began  to  call 
the  parchment  and  writings  JTDp.  Therefore  it 
was  that  the  doctors  of  the  Talmud  borrowed  this 
word  yDp  also  fur  the  tephillim,  as  we  find  it 
plainly  in  the  tract  upon  tephillim'.  "If  he  reverse 
Hen)  the  XPOp  it  is  considered  invalid"  (blDB  .  which 
means  if  lie  reverse  the  tephillim  ;  see  Phyl.  It  it. 
126.  The  following  is  also  found  (ibid.  L21) :  c,If 
he  make  it  as  a  kind  <>\'  ]!"£?  it  is  then  invalid" 
(?1DS\  This  means  it'  one  made  a  kind  i  i  case  in 
which  the  writings  are  placed.  For  tin-''  reasons 
the  Minima  could  not  term  it  pvj"?,  which  means 
an  article  directly  tied  to  the  body,  but  termed 
it  JTOp.  which  means  an  article  made  up  of  a 
collection   of  small  portions   of  names    and  abbrev- 


Vjt^' 


iatious    ul    the   names   of    ang<  in   ;i   skin 

case  folded  and  attached  to  a  string  and   tied  around 
the  neck.     In    this   way    it   comprised   the   meaning 
together  :   }*Dp>   a  collection,  --:^ 
to   fold,    and   xycp.    a  little,    a  small   portion.     The 
'    in    other    places   is    also   in    the    habil    of 
terming   an    article    which    is   plaited    and    doubled 
>1B31  -"    '■---    or    '  loldings",    as   the    foldings  on 
the    neck     -x^zl-  pt:op  .     (Xegoim,    Sect.  6.)     And 
likewise    they   used    the    expression    p^an   b  nyoip 
.   Id    the   tephillim    on    him     as   the 
word   ~wp    is   not   appropriate   to   express  the   fast- 
ening   of    Hit-    tephillim.     For    the   tephillim   them- 
-   are   nol    fastened   to   the   body,   but  only  the 
which  are  folded    around  the   arm   and  head 
And  for  this  reason  the  latter  authorities  prohibited 
uttering  the  blessing  of  the   tephillim  (yo^)  with  the 
words,  "to  tie  the  tephillim"  (p^an  -iit?p$>   from  arne'pl, 
which    is    found  in    the   Bible    and   to    which   they 
refer   the  tephillim,    but    enjoin   the    word    "to   put 
on"  rv'Dn    — :  —  :     because  only  the   totaphoth    were 
tied    from  ear   to  ear,   hut  not    the    tephillim    them, 
selves.     For  a  similar    reason  the  Talmud    preferred 
the    word  nyoip    to   the    word    nooip    because   the 


—    9  3    — 

term  >"SP  whs  known  to  them  as  a  name  for  any- 
thing worn  us  a  medicament  or  a  charm,  a  r6uD. 
Ami  as  a.conjecture  we  may  assume  that  the  word 
JPOp  was  adopted  together  with  the  names  of  angels 
from  i  he  Persians,  because  without  the  names  of  an- 
gels there  could  be  no  yep,  for  the  medical  properties 
of  herbs  they  did  not  call  JPOp.  Thus  they  borrowed 
it  together  with  the  name  in  Persian,  which  originates 
from  iiNO'p,  as  is  explained  above.  Likewise  the  au- 
thor of  the  Mashbir  explained  the  word  Kjnyp  from 
xop.     See  Mashbir. 

This  is  our  own  opinion  in  regard  to  the  word 
irop.  But  all  these  different  views  are  left  to  the 
choice   of  the   reader 

With  this  we  conclude  this  work,  and  though 
we  have  in  many  places  been  satisfied  with  a  brief 
treatment  where  greater  detail  seemed  accessary,  we 
hope  to  return  again  to  the  subject  when  we  shall  be 
enabled  to  publish  the  "History  ol  the  Tephilah, 
Tzitith,  and  Mezuzah".  on  which  we  are  now  al  work 
and  in  the  preparation  of  which  we  have  made  many 
aew  and  important  discoveries. 


CDSSblllbD 


